
Class 

Book _-^ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW 

EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

Volume XXX 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW 
JERSEY 

1664-1738 



EDWIN P. TANNER, Ph.D. 

Sometime Fellow in American HiMory 

Columbia University 

Instructor in Higlory in Syracuse University 




COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., AGENTS 
London : P. S. King & Son 

1908 






[library of CONGRESS 
Two Cooies Received 

I NOV n 1908 

Copyntfit tntry 



Copyright, 1908 

BY 

EDWIN P. TANNER 



PREFACE. 



The chief object of this study is to give an account of 
the politkal institutions of New Jersey during the period 
of her executive union with New York. The chapters 
on the proprietary period were originally prepared as 
introductory. A discussion of the economic and social 
development of the province is not a part of the problem. 

The most important original sources in print used in 
this work are the New Jersey Archives, the New York 
Colonial Documents, Learning and Spicer's Grants and 
Concessions and the Colonial Laws of Nevill and Allison. 
Nevill and Allison, however, give many important stat- 
utes only by title. Most, though not all, of the missing 
acts are to be found in the original Bradford prints in 
the Charlemagne Tower Collection of Colonial Law in 
the library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. The 
rare Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery and the still rarer 
Answer to the Bill give invaluable information as to the 
land controversy in East Jersey. Their statements have, 
however, been received with caution as the arguments of 
contending lawyers. 

The Journal of the General Assembly for the union 
period has been published (Jersey City, 1872) up to 
the end of Ingoldsby's administration. The rest is in 
manuscript in the State Library at Trenton. Other 
manuscript sources used are the Minutes of the Supreme 
Court, the East Jersey Records, the West Jersey Records, 

(iii) 



IV 



PREFACE 



Liber AAA of Provincial Commissions, the Minutes 
oi the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey and the 
Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey. 

The Minutes of the Supreme Court in the office of the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court contain brief entries of the 
legal proceedings of the period, but do not give much 
light as to the nature of the issues involved. Where a 
decision was reached, however, judgment rolls exist con- 
taining the judgment of the court in full. The East and 
West Jersey Records in the office of the Secretary of 
State comprise the books of deeds, patents, wills, com- 
missions and some surveys. Their general character is 
made clear by Vol. XXI of the New Jersey Archives, 
which contains a summary of the earlier books. The 
Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, still 
kept in the office of the proprietary register at Perth 
Amboy, throw much light on the activity of the propri- 
etors of that division. Unfortunately Book A begins 
only with the reestablishment of the council in 1725. 
The office contains also eighteenth-century copies of the 
East Jersey Records. The Minutes of the West Jersey 
Council in the office of the Surveyor-General at Burling- 
ton are complete for the proprietary and union periods, 
and readily accessible through the courtesy of the pro- 
prietors and of the Surveyor-General. 

In addition to original sources use has been made of 
numerous secondary works, especially those of White- 
head, Hatfield, Field, Brodhead and Winfield. The stu- 
dent of New Jersey history can not be too grateful for 
the able researches of these pioneers. 

My best thanks are due to Mr. William Nelson, Sec- 
retary of the New Jersey Historical Society, for invalu- 
able advice and assistance in obtaining access to material. 
I am also indebted to Mr. Francis M. Tichenor, Presi- 



PREFACE V 

dent of the Board of East Jersey Proprietors, for per- 
mission to examine the proprietary minutes. From the 
beginning I have had the advantage of the advice of 
Prof. H. L. Osgood. By him my first interest in 
colonial history was aroused; at his suggestion this 
work was undertaken ; and without his patient en- 
couragement its completion would have been impossible. 

Edwin P. Tanner. 
Syracuse, N. V., Aug. 24, 1908. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I 

PACK 

The Proprietorship in Land 
Distinction between the proprietorship as a form of land ownership 
and as a grant of governmental power — Origin of the proprietor- 
ship — Efforts of the Duke of York to recover New Jersey — The 
sale of Berkeley's interest to the Friends — Reconveyance of East 
Jersey from the Duke of York to Carteret — Transactions among 
the proprietors of West Jersey — The Quintipartite Deed — Final 
loss of West Jersey by James of York— Development of the West 
Jersey proprietorship — The investment of Dr. Daniel Coxe — The 
West New Jersey Society — The Twenty-four Proprietors of East 
Jersey— Further development of the East Jersey proprietorship — 
Quarrel between the Scots Proprietors and William Dockwra . . 24 

CHAPTER II 
Sources and Character of the Population of the Jerseys 
Failure of Dutch colonization — East Jersey settled from New Eng- 
land — The three zones of colonization— Emigration from Scotland 
under the twenty-four proprietors — Character of the settlers of 
West Jersey 29 

CHAPTER III 
The Land System of East Jersey 
Treatment of the Dutch settlers by Berkeley and Carteret — The 
Concessions and Agreements of the Lords Proprietors — The ex- 
ecution of the Concessions rendered difficult by the character of 
the settlers — Conflict between the proprietors and the settlers — 
The provisions of the Concessions finally carried out — Nature of 
the apportionment of the land under Carteret — The Concessions 
continued by the twenty-four proprietors — The institution of the 
Board of Proprietors — Character of the proprietary officers — Com- 
paratively large size of the proprietary holdings — Efforts of the 
new proprietors to conciliate the settlers — Relation of the assem- 
bly to the land system— Steps of the proprietors immediately pre- 
ceding the institution of royal rule 57 

(vii) 



viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER IV 
Land Troubles in East Jersey 
Popular misunderstanding of the land troubles in East Jersey— The 
real issues — Legal principles involved — The Monmouth patent — 
Temporary settlement of the questions arising out of it— The 
Elizabethtown controversy — Insufficient character of the evidence 
— Early anti-proprietary disturbances — Measures of the proprie- 
tors — Efifects of the Dutch reconquest — Re-establishment of the 
proprietary authority — Attitude of the twenty-four proprietors 
toward the Monmouth and Elizabethtown questions— The case of 
Jones vs. FuUerton — Revival of anti-proprietary agitation — The 
"Revolution" 80 

CHAPTER V 

Political Conditions in East Jersey under the Proprietors 
Uncertainty of the proprietors' claims to governmental power — 
Political features of the concessions — The establishment of the pro- 
prietary government — The first assembly— Subversion of the pro- 
prietary government — Collapse of the anti-proprietary movement 
— The development of difference of opinion between the governor 
and the assembly — Conciliatory policy of the Twenty-four pro- 
prietors — The Fundamental Constitutions — Attitude of the people 
toward the rule of Andros — The dismissal of Governor Hamilton 
— Unfortunate policy of Basse — Downfall of the proprietary 
system 96 

CHAPTER VI 
The Land System of West Jersey 
Institution of the system of tenths and proprieties — The Conces- 
sions and Agreements — Efforts to carry out the Concessions and 
Agreements— Gradual modification of the system — The institution 
of the Council of Proprietors— Nature of the apportionment of the 
land— New elements introduced by the West Jersey Society — 
Unimportant character of land disputes in West Jersey as com- 
pared with those of East Jersey — New projects of the proprietors. 112 

CHAPTER VII 
Political Conditions in West Jersey under the Proprietors 
Political provisions of the Concessions and Agreements — Interfer- 
ence by James of York and Edward Byllinge — Readjustment 
under Samuel Jennings as governor — Dealings between the as- 



TABLE OF CONTENTS ix 

PAGE 

sembly and Byllinge— The arbitration of 1684— Defeat of the 
assembly— Plans of Dr. Daniel Coxe— The power of government 
passes to the West Jersey Society— Development of parties under 
Hamilton and Basse ^^4 

CHAPTER Vni 
Relations with the Duke of York and the Crown 
Legal invalidity of the claim of Berkeley and Carteret to govern- 
mental power over New Jersey— Inability of James of York to 
prevent the establishment of their government— Effects of the 
Dutch reconquest— Relations between Andros and the authorities 
of the Jerseys— The arbitration of Sir William Jones and its re- 
sults—Dealings between Governor Dongan and the twenty-four 
proprietors— The Jerseys brought under the rule of Andros— The 
resumption of proprietary rule— Controversy between Lord Bello- 
mont and Governor Basse— Determination of the crown to as- 
sume jurisdiction over the Jerseys— Surrender of the proprietors. 138 

CHAPTER IX 
The Royal Governors 
Unsuccessful efforts to secure the appointment of Colonel Hamilton 
—Edward, Lord Cornbury— John, Lord Lovelace— Colonel Rich- 
ard Ingoldsby— Colonel Robert Hunter— William Burnet— John 
Montgomerie— William Cosby ^47 

CHAPTER X 

Legal Position of the Governor as Executive 
Power conveyed by the governors' commissions— The royal in- 
structions—Financial powers of the governor— His judicial powers 
—Religious control— Military power— Relation of the governor 
to trade and commerce— Relations between the governor and the 
proprietors— Information to be furnished by the governor— Addi- 
tional instructions to the governors— Limitation of the executive 
power by legislation ^"5 

CHAPTER XI 
The Executive Power in Practical Operation 
Effects of the union with New York upon the executive power in 
New Jersey— Executive abuses of Cornbury' s administration- 
Corruption checked by Lord Lovelace— Cornbury 's regime con- 



X TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

tinued by Ingoldsby — Hunter reorganizes the administration — 
His conflict with Cornbury's ring — Success of Hunter — The 
poHcy of Hunter continued by Burnet — Difference between the 
administrations of Hunter and Burnet — No positive poHcies de- 
veloped by Montgomerie and Cosby 220 

CHAPTER Xn 
The Governor in Legislation 
Legal control of the governor over the legislature —Part taken by 
him in its proceedings — Diflferences in the degree of influence pos- 
sessed by the various governors — Failure of Cornbury to control 
the assembly — Influence held by Lovelace — Some success gained 
by Ingoldsby — Powerful influence of Hunter upon the assemblies 
— Burnet's difficulties and final success — Montgomerie not en- 
tirely successful—The success of Cosby greater in New Jersey 
than in New York 231 

CHAPTER XIII 
The Movement for a Separate Governor 
Union with New York never really popular in New Jersey — Corn- 
bury's neglect of New Jersey — The demand for separation brought 
forward by Colonel Daniel Coxe — Growth of the desire for sep- 
aration — Unfortunate attempts of Montgomerie to check the 
movement — Efforts of Lewis Morris — Effect of the feeling for 
separation upon Governor Cosby — The work of President Ander- 
son and council and of the provincial agent — A separate execu- 
tive finally granted 242 

CHAPTER XIV 
Other Executive Officers 

The Lieutenant-Governor — Purpose of the office — Difficulties aris- 
ing out of it — Its abolition. 

The President of the Council — Creation of the post — Lewis Morris 
becomes president — His difficulties with Cornbury and Ingoldsby 
His two administrations — Administration of Colonel Anderson — 
Accession of Colonel John Hamilton — His conflict with Morris. 

Patent Officers of the crown — The provincial secretary — The 
attorney general. 

Officers commissioned by the governor — Commissioners named by 
the assembly — Agents of the proprietors 258 



TABLE OF CONTENTS xi 

PACK 

CHAPTER XV 
The Council— Personnel 
Both parties represented in the first royal council-A majority ob- 
tained by the anti-proprietary party-The suspension of Morris 
and the retirement of Jennings- Formation of Lord Cornbury s 
"ring "-Col. Daniel Coxe and Peter Sonmans the leading 
members-Changes upon the accession of Lovelace-Cornbury s 
clique continued in power by Ingoldsby-Blindness of the Lords 
of Trade-Hunter recommends the destruction ot Cornbury s 
ring-The reorganization of the council at length ef?ected-Later 
changes-The high character of the council maintained-Futile 
efforts of Cosby to obtain the dismissal of Morris and Alexander. 279 

CHAPTER XVI 

The Council— Its Legal Position 
The legal position of the council in New Jersey similar to that of 
the councils of other royal provinces-Powers of the council as 
set forth in the governors' comm.ssions-Its work more exactly 
stated in the instructions-Number of its members-Division ot 
its membership between East and West Jersey-Legal privileges 
of the council-Extent of the governor's control over its mem- 
bership-Its advice and consent needed by the governor for the 
performance of many executive acts- Judicial duties ot the coun- 
cil-Its reserve powers-The legal position of the council re- 
mains substantially unchanged during the union period -^^5 

CHAPTER XVII 
The Council in Administration 
Difficulty of understanding the nature of the council's proceedings 
-The council as a rule dominated by the governor-Frequency 
and length of council sessions-Functions of the council at the 
beginning of new administrations-Financial duties of the coun- 
cil-Powers over the courts-The supervision of subordinate 
executive officers-Laxity of its control-General police powers 
of the council-Its advisory functions-The council as an admin- 
istrative "ring" 

CHAPTER XVIII 
The Council in Legislation 
The council as upper house of the provincial legislature-Simplicity 
of its legislative methods-Thc council the mouthpiece of the 



295 



xii TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

governor in legislation— Its early eflforts to assume superiority 
over the assembly — Its claims to be a secret board— Defeat of the 
council — Theoretical equality and real inferiority of the council to 
the assembly under the later governors — Harmony between coun- 
cil and assembly— The superior experience of the council recog- 
nized by the assembly — The control of the assembly over the 
public purse established in practice — Activity of the council in 
drawing up addresses to the crown and to the governors .... 306 

CHAPTER XIX 
The General Assembly — Personnel 

General character of the representatives — The first assembly under 
proprietary control — Strength of the parties in the second assem- 
bly — Powerful character of the third assembly — Varying strength 
of the parties under Lovelace and Ingoldsby — Hunter's first 
assembly under proprietary control — Col. Coxe speaker of the 
seventh assembly — Expulsion of Coxe and his followers — Gov- 
ernor Hunter becomes the real leader — Fading away of the old 
party lines under Burnet — Permanence of membership in the 
later assemblies — The rise to influence of John Kinsey 316 

CHAPTER XX 

The General Assembly — Constitution and Legal Power 

The original constitution and pov/ers of the assembly based upon 
the governor's commission and instructions — Powers of the 
assembly as stated in Cornbury's commission — Provisions of his 
instructions relating to the assembly — Further power and priv- 
ileges of the representatives based upon English and Colonial 
precedents— Unsuccessful efforts of Cornbury and his supporters 
to change the constitution of the assembly — The constitution of 
the house altered by an additional instruction — The alteration 
confirmed by provincial legislation under Lord Lovelace — 
Further changes under Ingoldsby — Difficulties resulting for Gov- 
ernor Hunter— Eventual settlement of the questions involved — A 
transfer of representatives recommended by Burnet — The opinion 
of the attorney-general — The change efifected — The act of 1725 
regulating elections — Passage of a triennial act secured by John 
Kinsey — Its disallowance — Kinsey's act for the freedom of as- 
semblies 332 



TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii 

FACE 

CHAPTER XXI 

The General Assembly in Action 
Frequency of sessions-Length of assemblies-Places of meeting- 
Officers of the assembly-Procedure at the opening of assemblies 
—Methods of legislation-Importance of the control of the budget 
-Other financial powers-The assembly as the mouth-piece for 
the expression of grievances-Disputed elections-The assembly s 
power of determining the qualifications of its members-Disci- 
pline over members-Expulsion'-Tendency of the House to en- 
large its sphere of action at the expense of the executive-The 

assembly controls the colonial agency ^"^ 

CHAPTER XXn 
Executive and Legislative in Conflict 
Apparent harmony at the beginning of royal rule-Quarrel between 
Cornbury and the proprietary party— The "Blind Tax Re- 
sulting dissolution of the first assembly-The exclusion of the 
three Quaker members from the second assembly-Temporary 
control of the anti-proprietary party-Cornbury loses control of 
the representatives-Resulting attacks upon the governor-The 
great Remonstrance of 1707-Cornbury's answer— The reply of 
the House-Continued conflict-Lovelace well received by the 
assembly-Attack by the assembly upon the council-Renewed 
conflicts under Ingoldsby-His efforts to cast the blame upon the 
Friends— The fifth assembly favorable to Ingoldsby-Quarre 
about the title " General Assembly "-The early attitude of 
Hunter conciliatory-He is supported by the assembly and 
thwarted by the council^ Cornbury 's ring driven from the coun- 
cil-Triumph of the proprietary party-The seventh assembly 
controlled by Col. Coxe-Conflict between Hunter and the 
assembly-Defeat and expulsion of Coxe and his supporters- 
Harmony between the governor and the legislature at length re- 
established—Quarrel between Burnet and the representatives— 
Burnet's eventual success with the assembly-Conflict between 
Montgomerie and the assembly over separation from New York 
-Montgomerie corrected by the Lords of Trade-Serious trouble 
with the legislature avoided by Cosby— Conclusions 457 

CHAPTER XXni 
The Judicial System 
The System of Courts— Arrangements under the proprietary gov- 
ernments—Success of Cornbury 's administration in reorganizing 



xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PACE 

the courts— Legislation under Hunter affecting the system — 
Later alterations in the courts — Activity of Burnet in this field. 

The Personnel of the Courts— Roger Mompesson — William Pin- 
horne — Alexander Griffith— David Jamison— Thomas Farmar — 
William Trent— Robert Lettice Hooper. 

The Courts in Action—Corruption and injustice of the courts under 
Cornbury—The injustice checked by Lovelace — Bad efifects of the 
accession of Ingoldsby — The reformation of the courts by Hunter 
—Important prosecutions of public officers — The land question in 
the courts — The case of Vaughan vs. Woodruff — The Schuyler 
case— The judicial work of the council 501 

CHAPTER XXIV 
Financial Affairs 

Expenditure — The payment of salaries the chief regular source of 
expense — Efforts of Cornbury to obtain high salaries — Difficulties 
caused by the death of Lovelace — A fairly permanent scale of 
salaries established under Hunter— Grants for longer periods in- 
sisted upon by Burnet— The question of the appropriation of the 
interest money from the loan offiices — The colonial view adopted 
by Burnet and Montgomerie— Other expenditures — Outlay for 
the expeditions to Canada. 

Taxation — The system established under Cornbury — Its chief fea- 
tures followed in later acts — Methods of apportioning and collect- 
ing taxes — County and local taxes levied under provincial acts — 
Import and export duties — The excise — Serious difficulties in the 
collection of taxes. 

The Bills of Credit — Their first issue the result of the expeditions 
against Canada — Early difficulties with the bills — A new issue 
forced by the difficulties of taxation — The establishment of the 
loan offices in 1723 — The second and third lopn-office acts — Atti- 
tude of the later governors — Position of the home government . 558 

CHAPTER XXV 

The Militia System 
General inefficiency of the militia — The political importance of the 
militia question increased by the presence of Quakerism — Military 
powers of the governor — The Quakers attacked by Cornbury and 
his supporters through the militia act of 1704— Resulting diffi- 
culties — A milder system estabHshed under Hunter— Military 
activity of Burnet — His failure to gain important results— Weak- 
ness of the militia at the end of the period — New Jersey's contri- 
butions during Queen Anne's War 579 



TABLE OF CONTENTS XV 

FACE 

CHAPTER XXVI 

The Church of England in the Jerseys 

Religious coloring in the political struggles of the colony — Begin- 
nings of Anglicanism in the Jerseys — The work of George Keith 
— His efforts continued by Rev. John Talbot — Relations between 
Cornbury and the missionaries — Efforts to make Burlington the 
seat of an American bishop— Hunter's quarrel with the high 
church party — Defeat of Talbot and his supporters — Progress 
made by the Church — Talbot consecrated as a bishop by the Non- 
Jurors— The end of his career— The Church well established at the 
end of the period 6oi 

CHAPTER XXVII 

The Proprietorship under Royal Rule— East Jersey 

Opposing interests in the East Jersey proprietorship — Belief of the 
proprietors that they had surrendered on conditions— Early har- 
mony between Cnrnbury and the proprietors — Tlie " Long Bill " 
— Break between Cornbury and the proprietary party — Practical 
suspension of the council of proprietors — Conflict between the 
proprietors and Cornbury— Struggle in England between the 
West Jersey Society and William Dockwra— Claims of Sonmans 
as general agent of the proprietors — He is recognized by Corn- 
bury — Work of the proprietors in securing Cornbury's removal — 
The proprietors favored by Lovelace — Their efforts checked by 
Ingoldsby — Hunter allies himself with the proprietors — Overthrow 
of Sonmans, Basse and Col. Coxe — Revival of proprietary activity 
— The case of Vaughan vs. Woodruff — Effect upon the people of 
Elizabethtown — Dispute with West Jersey over the partition line 
— George Keith's line — The Barclay-Coxe agreement — The 
"Greenland award" — The act of assembly for running the line — 
Failure of the act — The boundary dispute with New York — Bur- 
net's attitude toward the proprietorship — His quarrel with John- 
stone and Willocks — The revival of the council of proprietors — 
Nature of its organization and proceedings — Relations with Mont- 
gomerie and Cosby^The proprietorship weakened by the with- 
drawal of Lewis Morris — Futile efforts to adjust the question of 
the division line with West Jersey — Revival of the Elizabethtown 
controversy — The Schuyler case and its results — Increased diffi- 
culties of the proprietorship 667 



xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER XXVIII 

The Proprietorship under Royal Rule— West Jersey 

Conflicting elements in the West Jersey proprietorship— Condition 
of the proprietary affairs at the beginning of royal rule — The con- 
flict with Cornbury — Suspension of the council of proprietors — Its 
revival under Lovelace — Transactions relating to the ' ' new In- 
dian purchase" — The council of proprietors captured by Col. 
Daniel Coxe — Relations with Hunter — Preparations for a fourth 
proprietary dividend — Appointment of a register and surveyor by 
the West Jersey Society — The influence of Coxe supplanted by 
that of Morris — The election of James Smith as register and of 
James Alexander as surveyor-general — Attitude of the West 
Jersey proprietorship in the boundary dispute — The council once 
more controlled by Coxe — He opposes the adjustment with East 
Jersey — Renewed conflict over the surveyor-generalship — Alex- 
ander succeeds in retaining office — Later work of the council^ 
Preparations for a fifth dividend — Business methods of the council. 702 



CHAPTER 1 
The Proprietorship in Land 

A clear understanding of the somewhat complicated legal 
questions arising in the Province of New Jersey during the 
proprietary period is most readily reached by drawing a 
sharp distinction between the proprietorship as a form of 
land ownership and as a grant of governmental power. It 
is the purpose of this chapter to trace the changes in the 
title to the soil of the Province under the British Crown 
down to 1703. During most of the period from the Eng- 
lish conquest of New Netherland to the establishment of 
royal rule, the proprietors of New Jersey were maintaining 
a government over the province. But there is no necessary 
logical connection between the two phases of colonial pro- 
prietorship, and it will greatly facilitate our task to discuss 
them separately. 

According to the English law of the seventeenth century 
the title to the entire eastern shore of North America ex- 
tending through from sea to sea lay in the British Crown 
in virtue of the discoveries of the Cabots. This claim was 
of very doubtful justice, but it was made good by the su- 
perior colonizing abilities of England. As for the Dutch 
claims upon the Hudson and the Delaware, they were never 
expressly recognized by the British government. 

The great patent of 1606 to the London and Plymouth 
Companies made the territory now included in New Jersey 
a part of the zone in which either company might acquire 
territory. But neither one made any effort to plant settle- 

[I 



2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ments in this region. Again, in 1634, while New Nether- 
land was actually in possession of the Dutch, King Charles 
I, probably through the influence of Strafford, granted the 
province of New Albion to the Roman Catholic, Sir Edmund 
Ployden. New Jersey was included within its limits. But 
Sir Edmund possessed neither the ability nor the means to 
make New Albion a second Maryland, and the grant became 
a dead letter. 

The act of Charles II in granting, on March 12, 1664, to 
his brother James, Duke of York, an extensive American 
territory coinciding in part with New Netherland is to be 
looked upon as the first enduring legal separation of the soil 
of what was to be New Jersey from the English Crown. 
New Jersey was, however, merely included in the sweeping 
gift and was not yet in any way marked off from the ad- 
joining territories. The patent made over to the Duke of 
York, in addition to certain territories in New England, 
Long Island " lying and being toward the west of Cape 
Cod " and all the mainland from the west bank of the Con- 
necticut to the east side of Delaware Bay. All this terri- 
tory was to be held by the Duke in free and common socage 
as of the manor of East Greenwich, subject to the rent of 
40 beaver skins annually if they should be demanded.^ 

A few years later James undoubtedly estimated the im- 
portance of colonial affairs more justly than any of the 
other Stuarts. But this fact was, in part at least, the result 
of his connection with the maritime affairs of England as 
Lord High Admiral and of his experience as proprietor of 
New York. In 1664 he does not seem to have known ac- 
curately the true value of what he had obtained. 

This ignorance led him to commit a serious blunder at 
the very outset. While the expedition of Nicolls, which 

' JVew Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 3. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND 3 

was to clear his property from the obstruction of Dutch oc- 
cupation, was still on the ocean, and, of course, before New 
Netherland was actually in his possession, the Duke exe- 
cuted, on June 23 and 24, 1664, deeds of lease and release 
to Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, by which 
he made over to them all " that tract of land lying and be- 
ing to the westward of Long Island and Manhitas Island 
and bounded on the east part by the main sea and part by 
Hudson's river and hath upon the West Delaware Bay 
or river and to the northward as far as the northermost 
branch of the said Bay or River of Delaware which is 
41° 40' of latitude and crosseth over thence in a straight line 
to Hudson's River in 41° of latitude, which said tract of 
land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of Nova 
Cesarea or New Jersey." In return for this magnificent 
grant the Duke received merely a nominal remuneration. 
The lease for one year was made in consideration of the 
sum of los and subject to the rent of a peppercorn. The 
release provided for a rent of 40 nobles annually if de- 
manded.^ 

That the Duke should make such a grant to Berkeley and 
Carteret, who were prominent and typical figures at the Re- 
storation court, was however, very natural. The Restora- 
tion was a time of great revival of interest in the colonies, 
and both noblemen were already connected with colonial 
affairs as proprietors of the Carolinas. Berkeley and Car- 
teret were, moreover, tried and true Cavaliers who had 
fought and suffered in the King's cause and to whom, there- 
fore, the Stuarts were under real obligation. 

But the location of the grant in the midst of the Duke's 
possessions and almost cutting them in two made the gift 
a harmful one to James himself. Governor Nicolls of 

^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, pp. 8, 10. 



4 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



New York, in his irritation at being deprived of the terri- 
tory, declared indeed that the gift was due to the machina- 
tions of Capt. Scott, the adventurer, whose claims upon Long 
Island had been passed over and who had other grievances 
against the Duke as well. Nicolls thought that this man 
in spite had influenced Berkeley and Carteret to ask for the 
land in question, knowing that James would thus lose much 
of his finest territory.^ There is, however, no further 
evidence of such an intrigue. 

But the eyes of James were soon opened to the mistake 
which he had made. As soon as he heard of the grant. 
Gov. Nicolls wrote to the Duke protesting.- He stated 
that Berkeley and Carteret doubtless did not know how 
damaging their colony would be to the Duke and suggested 
that they be urged to take instead a grant lying along the 
two shores of the Delaware.^ Later, Samuel Maverick, one 
of the royal commissioners to New England, added his 
protest.* When, moreover, in 1668 Nicolls returned to 
England, he seems to have done all in his power to con- 
vince the Duke of the necessity of undoing the grant, if it 
was in any way possible.^ James for once appears to have 
been convinced, and when determined upon advancing his 
own interest he was never backward. His first step was 
the recovery of Staten Island which was taken from New 
Jersey upon the technicality that one arm of Hudson's 
River flowed around it." As the deeds making over the 
land to Berkeley and Carteret were undoubtedly legal, it 
is difficult to see how more could have been accomplished 
by active aggression. 

^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 46. 

*/bid., vol. i. p. 46. '^Ibid., vol. i, p. 54. *Ibid., vol. i, p. 58. 

* Brodhead, History of the State of New York (New York, 1853) , vol. 
ii, p. 149. 

* Brodhead, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 149; Clute, Annals of Staten island 
(New York, 1877), p. 47. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND 5 

But circumstances almost enabled the Duke by pacific 
means to regain what he had lost. Lord Berkeley was 
never much interested in the new lands, and just at this 
time he fell into disgrace at court owing to charges of 
corruption. He therefore offered to surrender his interests 
to James and to receive lands on the Delaware instead. 
Sir George Carteret also agreed to the exchange, and ar- 
rangements were almost concluded. But for some reason 
which can now only be surmised, though probably connected 
with the claims of Lord Baltimore to the western shore of 
Delaware Bay, the transfer fell through.^ 

The Dutch reconquest of New Netherland and the subse- 
quent return of the country into English hands, however, 
gave James a golden opportunity, for by such conquest and 
recession, according to the principles of English law, all 
former grants and patents were annulled, and the whole ter- 
ritory once more fell directly beneath the power of the 
British Crown. The Duke of York at once obtained from 
his brother a new patent reconveying to him all the Ameri- 
can territories which the former grant of 1664 had given 
him. This was esentially a new grant and did not even 
allude to the former one. It of course included New 
Jersey with the rest of the territory conveyed. Thus 
James was master of the situation by every legal principle 
and had recovered all his lost ground." 

But meanwhile other events had taken place altering the 
situation. Down to March 18, 1673-4, Berkeley and Car- 
teret had continued as joint proprietors of New Jersey, hav- 
ing never made any division of the lands between them. 
But Berkeley soon saw the difficulties which must be en- 
countered before any substantial gain could result from the 

'Brodhead, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 150, 164. 

''Ibid., op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 260-261; Learning and Spicer, Grants and 
Concessions (reprint, Somerville, 1881), p. 41. 



6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

new country. He had little interest in America and was 
anxious only to come out of the whole affair without loss. 
Therefore, on the above-mentioned date, he sold out his un- 
divided share of New Jersey to two members of the So- 
ciety of Friends, John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, for 
the sum of £1000. This purchase was, of course, a 
bargain.^ But the Friends were unfortunate in that it 
took place just after the Dutch reconquest of July, 1673. 
By this reconquest, as has been pointed out, the claims of 
the English Proprietors were forfeited. Byllinge and Fen- 
wick might, however, justly look to the English Crown for 
compensation since the Treaty of 1674 had restored the 
country to England. 

Nevertheless the purchase of 1673-4 is an event of the 
greatest historical significance for it marks the beginning 
of the first great Quaker experiment in American coloniza- 
tion. It is unnecessary to trace here the work of George 
Fox and the growth of the Society of Friends in England, 
nor have we time to examine the disabilities and persecu- 
tions to which those devoted people were subject there. 
Unfortunately it is not easy to trace in detail the develop- 
ment of the idea of colonization among them. The burn- 
ing zeal of the early Friends had driven them to endure in 
the plantations a persecution as bitter as that in the mother- 
land itself, and their heroic missionary efforts had been 
crowned by considerable success. But as yet there had 
been no attempt at the creation of a Quaker commonwealth 
in America. 

Edward Byllinge, described as " gentleman of West- 
minister, Middlesex, England," was a Quaker merchant of 
some standing, while John Fenwick was a former officer in 
Cromwell's army, who had become a convert to the doctrines 

'Mulford, History of New Jersey (Philadelphia, 1851), pp. 155, 164. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND y 

of the Friends. He seems, however, to have been a self- 
assertive person, by no means entirely weaned from the in- 
stincts of the " world's people." ^ But as the purchase of 
a share in New Jersey was simply made by Fenwick in 
trust for Byllinge, the latter was the person chiefly con- 
cerned. 

There is no direct evidence to show whether Byllinge had 
in mind originally the founding of a refuge for his sect in 
America or whether his investment was simply a business 
transaction. Later events surely indicate that the motives 
were combined. A group of Friends was already settled 
upon the soil of New Jersey at Shrewsbury, one of whom 
was the brother of a well-known London upholsterer.* 
Moreover, during the period from 1671-3, Fox himself was 
traveling and preaching in America and. as his route from 
Maryland to New England took him directly across New 
Jersey,' the student can scarcely help inferring a connection 
between his journey and the purchase, though Fox himself 
says nothing to indicate it. At any rate William Penn was 
closely associated with Byllinge, and the leading part he 
subsequently played in the affairs of West Jersey makes 
it probable that he was the real instigator of the purchase. 
It is certainly clear that the whole Society of Friends soon 
came to be behind the attempt and that upon the suc- 
cess or failure of West Jersey depended the extent of their 
subsequent operations in America. 

But though the claims of Berkeley, such as they were, 
to the soil of New Jersey thus passed into the hands of men 
of an entirely different stamp. Sir George Carteret did not, 
like his associate, wish to retire from colonization. In 

'^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 185, note. Johnson, 
Salem (Philadelphia, 1839), pp. 29-34. 
* Journal of George Fox (Philadelphia, undated), p. 449. 
*Ibid., pp. 449-508. 4S3-45S. 



8 THE PROVINCE OF XEIV JERSEY 

spite of \*arious troubles the planting of Xova Caesarea 
had made g-ood progress, and he did not wish to abajidon it 
He realized, however, the necessity of obtaining a proper 
legal basis for his claims and therefore exerted his influ- 
ence at court to secure tlie renewal of his grant King 
Oiarles, as usual, was ready to please the stauncli old 
Cavalier, and several weeks before the Duke took out his 
second patent, he signed a letter setting forth that Carteret 
was legally seized of the Pro\-ince of New Jersey.^ How 
the king could do this without making a fomial grant of 
tlie province to Carteret is an enigma, for at tlie time the 
pro\nnce legally belonged to Oiarles himself and to no one 
dsc. And moreover, a ro\-al patent was about to be issued 
gi\-ing botli it and the adjoining districts to Tames/ How- 
ever, as tlie letter was unofficial, we may disregard it as of 
no legal \-alue. 

Yet it was a foretaste of Carteret's success, for soon after 
he actually succeeded in getting from the Duke of York, 
by exactly what means we cannot say, a formal reconvey- 
ance for a portion of the former pro\-ince of New Jersey.' 
He was to have all north of a line drawn from Bamegat 
to a certain creek on tlie Delaware next below Rankokus 
Creek, an arrangement which gave Carteret more than half 
of the territory.* Carteret's province was once more called 
Xew Jersey. James himself later said that the new con- 
\-eyance was obtained from him " b\- surprise," but this is 
obscure. It is more likely that Carteret's influaice was too 
strong for the Duke. He was, moreover, a man of hot 
temper and much determination, whom it would be unwise 

'A/ar Jfrsgr ArtJdsies (first soics), vol. i. p. 153- 
'Brodhead. op, cU., vol. ii, p. a6~. 

* Nop Jersey Archives (first series'), vol. i. pp. 160-163. 

• Whitehead . E^isi Jersty wmder the ProprieUtry Gcvermmieuts (Newark, 
1875)- P- 81 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IS LAND 9 

for James to antagonize as things then stood in England* 
At any rate the fact of the new grant remains clear and 
certain, and from this time on the title of Carteret to the 
soil of such land as the conve>-ance covered was never 
legally called into question- 
There still remained, howe\er, the question as to the title 
of the remainder of the original New Jersey grant The 
Quaker assigns of Berkeley acted as if they supposed that 
the residue necessarily came into their possession in spite of 
the Dutch reconquest. In so far as concerns their relations 
with the Duke of York, their conduct is certainly charac- 
terized by the utmost straightforwardness and simplicity 
of mind. In their relations with each other, howe>-er, this 
simplicity is not so apparent Almost immediately a diffi- , 
culty arose between Byllinge and Fenwick as to what* 
interest each of them held in the new region. -\s they 
could not agree, they eventually submitted the question to 
the arbitration of William Penn, whose commanding in- 
fluence among his co-religionists is thus very clearly shown. 
After due consideration he awarded nine-tenths of the 
territor>- to Byllinge and one-tenth to Fenwick, with a con- 
siderable sum of mone>'.* But a set of curious complica- 
tions soon overset this arrangement Byllinge met with 
business reverses, and. as he did not wish to surrender the 
new undertaking, he made over his interest in New Jersey 
to William Penn, Gawen Lawrie, and Nicholas Lucas, to 
be held in trust for his creditors. The fact that these three 
prominent Friends thus assumed the chief management of 
affairs is one of the clearest indications that the entire So- 
ciet}- was interested in the attempt of Byllinge.* 

* Brodhead, op. cU., vol. ii, p. 268. 

* Mulford, New Jersey, p. 166; Smith. History of Vu Colony of No9m 
Caesarea or New Jersey (Trenton, 1877), p. 79- 

*Malford, op. cit., p. 167; Smith, op. cU., p. 79- 



lO THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

And now Fenwick also lost legal control of his portion. 
He had begun at once to make preparations for a settlement 
in person and in addition sold portions of his land to others. 
But before he set out he was forced to obtain a loan from 
John Elbridge and Edmund Warner, two well-known 
Friends, and as security for the payment of this and other 
debts gave them a lease of his part of the Province for 
1000 years with the power to sell enough to reimburse them 
for the loan. This transaction, of course, really took all 
control out of Fenwick's hands. ^ 

Meanwhile, Penn, Lucas, and Lawrie were pushing mat- 
ters and succeeded in settling the claims of Byllinge's credi- 
tors in great part by satisfying them with land." But the 
trustees were not content with the division of New Jersey 
as provided for by the Duke's grant to Carteret and deter- 
mined to bring about if possible an arrangement more to 
their own advantage. It was thought expedient, in order 
to accomplish this, that the whole of the Quaker portion of 
New Jersey should be placed under the direct control of the 
representatives of Byllinge. Therefore Elbridge and 
Warner made over to them all that part which they had 
obtained from Major Fenwick.^ The trustees of Byllinge, 
thus having complete charge of the Quaker interest, forth- 
with addressed themselves to Sir George Carteret and with- 
out difficulty obtained a new division of the province, that 
nobleman being persuaded by the Duke of York to surrender 
his advantage.* A line was now agreed upon beginning at 
Little Egg Harbor and running to a point on the Delaware 
in 41° north latitude which was in future to be the boundary 

'Mulford, op. cit., p. 167; Johnson, Salem, p. 56. 

'Mulford, op. cit., p. 169; West Jersey Records, liber B (part i). 

*Mulford, op. cit., p. 170. 

•Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 86. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IX L.4yD 1 1 

between East and West New Jersey as the two portions 
were now definitely christened. The document by which 
this arrangement was effected was signed by Carteret. Penn. 
Lucas. Lawrie. and BylHnge. and is therefore kno\>Ti as the 
Quintipartite Deed.^ There is nothing to indicate that the 
Friends knew how greatly the new division was in their 
favor, but it gave West Jersey approximately 4.595 square 
miles as against 2.981 for East Jersey. Inasmuch as the 
Quaker claims to any part of New Jersey were from a 
strictly legal point of view invalid, the power of Byllinge's 
trustees to make any rearrangement of the territon*- was 
naturally nil. Nevertheless, as the claims of the Friends 
were eventually made good, and as the line thus laid down 
really came to be the division between two distinct provinces 
and land systems, the Quintipartite Deed must be regarded 
as an important mark in New Jersey history. From this 
time on until the establishment of royal government we are 
dealing with the history of two clearly separate colonies. 
— East and West Jersey. 

After the transaction had been completed. Penn. Lawrie. 
and Lucas reconveyed Fenwick's tenth to Elbridge and 
Warner but now made it over to them in fee simple, thus 
cutting off any possible reversion to Fenwick or his heirs. 
This was a sharp practice, tliough perhaps legal." But Fen- 
wick complained loudly that he had been defrauded of his 
rights. He refused to recognize the validity of what had 
been done and continued to style himself chief proprietor 
of West Jersey.' In 1O75 he had established a colony at 
Salem, ^ hut before his relations with the legitimate proprie- 
tors could lead to serious difficulty he became involved in 
quarrels with Gov. Andros of New York and was for a time 

^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i. p. ^5. 

*Mulford, op. cit., pp. 170-171. 

•Johnson, op. cit., p. i";. •Smith, op. cit.. p. 70. 



12 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

forcibly removed from the scene of action/ After the 
rights of Fenwick had been thus put aside, Elbridge and 
Warner were joined with Byllinge and his trustees as regu- 
lar proprietors of West Jersey and, as such, participated in 
action taken with regard to the province.^ But Fenwick 
resolutely maintained at least his claims against the West 
Jersey proprietors until 1682, when a peaceful settlement 
was at length effected by William Penn. In September of 
that year the shares of Elbridge and Warner were made 
over to Penn, and in March, Fenwick released all his estate 
in the province to the same person,^ except the tract known 
as Fenwick's Colony containing 150,000 acres.* To this 
land his right was recognized, but henceforth Penn was 
acknowledged as owner of the one-tenth interest in the 
proprietorship which had been under dispute. 

From this point the study of the relations of the various 
claimants to proprietorship in New Jersey is much compli- 
cated by the continued dispute carried on between the Duke 
of York on the one hand and Carteret and the assigns of 
Berkeley on the other as to the right of the latter to exer- 
cise governmental rights over the province. With this mat- 
ter we are, of course, not in this chapter concerned. In the 
case of the Quaker claimants to West Jersey, however, the 
conflict necessarily involved also the validity of the claims 
of Penn and his associates to the soil of West Jersey and is 
therefore of great account in our present consideration. 
From the signing of the Quintipartite Deed the Quakers 
were engaged in a desperate legal struggle to make good 

^Mulford, op. cit., pp. 168-9, 184-5; New Jersey Archives (first 
series), pp. 187-204, 235-239, 274-283. 
''Mulford, op. cit., p. 171. 

* Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. loi. 

* Johnson, op. cit., p. 26; New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, 
p. 370. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND 13 

their claims. It would seem that, when the legal basis of 
their case was so weak, the result must have been a foregone 
conclusion, especially when they were pitted against James 
Stuart. But such was not the case. Penn and his asso- 
ciates handled the matter with great skill. This, moreover, 
was just the time when James, threatened by the Exclusion 
Bill, was obliged to retire to Scotland to avoid the outcry 
raised against him, and when he was most anxious to rid 
himself of all further causes of complaint at any sacrifice 
whatever. West Jersey was a small thing to weigh against 
the crown of England. Unwilling to alienate the influ- 
ence of Penn at court and throughout the country, the Duke 
was finally led to leave the entire controversy to the de- 
cision of Sir William Jones, an eminent lawyer, indeed, but 
one of his most bitter opponents.^ 

The result was what the Friends must have anticipated. 
They argued their case with shrewdness, and Sir William 
decided against the Duke in every particular. His brief 
opinion mentioned the original grant of New Jersey to 
Berkeley and Carteret but referred in no way to the Dutch 
reconquest and its results.^ But whatever objections may 
be brought against the arbitration, James was in no position 
to stand out against it. Without waiting even for the ad- 
vice of his own counsel he executed a deed making over 
whatsoever rights he had to the soil of West Jersey to the 
Quaker proprietors. It is even said that this deed of re- 
lease w-as presented to the Duke by Byllinge himself. It is 
certainly significant that it recites most carefully the several 
conveyances which had taken place and makes special men- 
tion of the Dutch reoccupation.^ At any rate the con- 

' Brodhead, JVew York, vol. ii, pp. 338-341. 

* New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 323. 

^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 324; Brodhead, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 341. 



14 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



troversy was definitely settled. The entire soil of Nova 
Caesarea had slipped from the grasp of the Duke. 

It now remains for us to trace the proprietorships of 
East and West Jersey down to 1703, the date of the es- 
tablishment of royal government. It will be most con- 
venient to consider West Jersey first. It was apparently 
never the intention of Byllinge and his associates to retain 
any general proprietary rights to the soil of their whole 
province. In March, 1676 in the " Concessions " issued by 
the West Jersey proprietors, a definite arrangement was set 
forth by which proprietary rights could be acquired.^ The 
entire province of West Jersey was to be divided into 100 
equal parts to be known as proprieties, and these were to 
be grouped into ten larger divisions known as tenths. 
Persons purchasing tenths or proprieties were to be recog- 
nized as proprietors. One-tenth was of course recognized 
as belonging to Elbridge and Warner, and two other tenths 
were disposed of at once to creditors of Byllinge. One of 
these was made over to five Friends of Yorkshire, Thomas 
Hutchinson, Thomas Pearson, Joseph Helmsley, George 
Hutcheson and Mahlon Stacy, for consideration of sums of 
£2450 and £1050 due to them from Byllinge." The 
other tenth was acquired by a group of London Quak- 
ers,^ who selected as their commissioners John Penford, 
Thomas Olive, Daniel Wills and Benj. Scott.* But neither 
of these associations contemplated the establishment of con- 
solidated landed interests. The Yorkshire group began at 
once to dispose of portions of their tenths to other parties. 
The London Quakers do not appear to have acted collec- 
tively after their purchase, but individually they too sold out 

^New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 241. 
* Smith, op. cit., p. 92 (note); West Jersey Records, liber B, part i, 
pp. 131, 138. 
'Smith, op. cit., p. 92. ^Ibid., p. 98. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND 



15 



fractions of their interests. Thus the number of proprietors 
increased rapidly. And this effect was further increased 
by additional sales of shares from Byllinge and his trustees.^ 
Several sales of whole proprieties are recorded. But 
from the beginning it appeared that this unit was too large, 
and fractions of proprieties were sold. For example, on 
February 28 and March i, 1676, Byllinge and his assigns 
sold one propriety to William Peachy. Byllinge received 
£350 and Penn, Lawrie, and Lucas 5s. each." This 
seems to have been the standard price. But the propriety 
was divided as follows : W'm. Peachy one-eighth, John 
Cripps one-eighth, Thomas Doll one-eighth, Richard Smith 
one-eighth, Richard Mathews one-eighth, Henry Stacy one- 
eighth, W'm. Kent one-eighth, and W'm. Drevvitt one- 
eighth. In the same month of the same year Thomas Budd 
obtained a propriety on similar terms.' In February, 1683 
he sold one-eighth of this to William Budd.* In Septem- 
ber, 1682 another one-eighth had been sold for £50 
to John Gosling.' And so the process went on. But the 
fractions in many cases kept growing smaller. Thus the 
W'm. Kent above mentioned, in July 1678, sold one- fourth 
of his one-eighth of a share to Wm. Muliness.® All sorts 
of fractions of proprieties were sold, but those most usual 
were fourths, eighths, sixteenths, thirty-seconds and sixty- 
fourths. The subdivision of shares was, also, in some 
cases the result of inheritance. Of larger sales perhaps the 
most notable was that of April, 1677, from the proprietors 
to Robert Turner and four other Irish Friends. This in- 
cluded an entire propriety.^ In most cases the early pur- 
chasers of proprietary interests were Friends, and the 
greater number of sales of shares in the Yorkshire Tenth 

' West Jersey Records, passim. ^ Ibid., liber B, part i, p. i. 

^ Ibid., p. 6. ^ Ibid., p. 37. ^ Ibid., p. 49. 

*Ibid., p. 84. ^ Ibid,, p. so. 



1 6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

were to persons resident in the north of England. The 
great majority of those holding shares removed to the pro- 
vince. 

Thus the entire character of the West Jersey proprietor- 
ship changed. The old feudal element was gone, and the 
proprietors became merely a numerous body of land own- 
ers. As to the exact number holding proprietary interests 
down to 1702 no definite statement can be made. Many 
shares were never claimed at all ; others were not recorded 
and so lost.^ In 1687 when the council of proprietors 
was established, an important agreement was signed by 31 
residents of the province,^ each of whom held at least an 
interest of one thirty-second of a propriety, and this did not 
include the eleven members of the council itself. After 
Penn directed his attention chiefly elsewhere, no one man 
of commanding ability and influence appeared among the 
West Jersey proprietors to take his place. The most not- 
able names among them are those of the shrewd and cour- 
ageous Samuel Jennings and the respected Thomas Olive. 
Others who took a prominent part in proprietary affairs 
were Francis Davenport, John Reading, William Biddle, 
Peter Fretwell, Thomas Gardiner, Sr., and Thomas Gar- 
diner, Jr., who was surveyor general after 1694. 

But, in spite of the various sales and transfers, the inter- 
ests of Edward Byllinge continued to predominate down to 
his death in 1687. His entire holdings then passed by pur- 
chase from his heirs into the hands of Dr. Daniel Coxe. 
Dr. Coxe was a well-known personage, being physician to 
the Queen of Charles II and later also to Anne.^ He was 

' Stokes, in Proceedings of the West Jersey Surveyors' Association 
(Camden, 1880), p. 48. 

^Minutes of thf Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. i, p. i. 

*John Clement, Proceedings of the West Jersey Surveyors' Associa- 
tion, p. 119. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND 17 

an energetic and ambitious man whose object at this time 
was apparently to imitate the achievements of WilHam 
Penn.^ Coxe afterward speculated rather extensively in 
colonial land claims, being remembered especially as the 
purchaser of Sir Robert Heath's patent of 1629 for " Caro- 
lana," the continued validity of which he endeavored to 
secure.^ But as Coxe was not a Friend his operations were 
regarded rather coolly in West Jersey.^ The court phy- 
sician had difficulty, however, in securing the recognition of 
his claims to governmental control over the province and 
soon decided to withdraw from his venture. Accordingly, 
in 1 69 1, he sold out the greater part of his interest to a 
company known as the West Jersey Society/ According 
to the deeds of lease and release, about 20 proprieties in 
West Jersey, together with certain interests in East Jersey. 
Pennsylvania, and New England passed over to the new 
investors in consideration of 4,800 pounds. The names of 
48 persons appear on the release as belonging to the society. 
Sir Thomas Lane was its first president. Edmund Harrison 
its vice-president, and Robert Hackshaw treasurer. The 
Society's articles of agreement state its purpose as " our 
mutual benefit, profit, and advantage," as well as '* the 
better and more orderly managing and improving of the 
said hereditary government, lands, and tenements." The 
stock was divided into 1600 equal shares, and the holding 
of two of these was required for the privilege of voting at 
the annual meeting for the election of officers. The actual 
business management rested in the hands of a committee, 
which had power to sell and dispose of all lands. The 

'Smith, op. cit., p. 191 (note). 

* McCrady, South Carolina under the Proprietary Government (New 
York, 1897), p. 55- 
'Smith, op. cit., p. 192. 
*^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. ii, p. 41. 



l8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

possession of twenty shares was required for being of the 
committee. '^ The workings of the society, however, were 
not smooth. As usual, the number of share holders was 
largely increased by the sale and inheritance of shares, and 
confusion resulted. Another distracting element was thus 
added to the complexity which already characterized the 
proprietorship of West Jersey. The West Jersey Society 
continued to carry out its operations from London, and the 
controlling element at any rate was non-Quaker." 

Dr. Coxe subsequently conveyed to his son, the famous 
Colonel Daniel Coxe of the Royal Period, all the remainder 
of his interests.^ An investigation made by the council of 
proprietors in 17 14 showed that Col. Coxe held legal 
title to approximately four proprieties,* the largest single 
interest in the province with the exception of those of the 
West Jersey Society and of Penn. But the uncertainty 
which had previously existed as to the validity of the 
claims of the Coxes after 1691 was a source of annoy- 
ance and difficulty in proprietary affairs. 

The council of proprietors, which came into existence in 
West Jersey in 1687, did something to bring unity into the 
proprietary management. In February of that year a gen- 
eral meeting of all persons having proprietar}^ interests was 
held at Burlington, and a body of eleven commissioners es- 
tablished, to be chosen annually and to have general charge 
of all matters touching the common interest. All per- 
sons holding one thirty-second of a propriety were admitted 
to vote.^ The institution of the council gave a consider- 

^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. ii, p. 72,. 
'John Clement, "The West New Jersey Society" in Proceedings of 
the West Jersey Surveyors' Association, pp. 1 18-148. 
^Ibid., p. 120. 

*■ Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. no. 
''Ibid., bk. i, p. i. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND 



19 



able degree of unity to the affairs of the American proprie- 
tors despite the unwieldly character of the system. The 
members of the council were usually persons possessing 
the public confidence, like Jennings and Olive. There was. 
indeed, some little complaint on the part of a minority that 
the commissioners sought their own interest.^ But on the 
whole, things moved harmoniously. The chief cause of 
trouble was, of course, the fact that the proprietors in Eng- 
land were too far removed to cooperate effectively. Such, 
then, was the condition of affairs when, in 1702, West Jersey 
came under royal government. The student who compre- 
hends it will readily understand numerous later develop- 
ments which would be otherwise obscure. 

Meanwhile a very similar result had curiously enough 
come about in East Jersey in spite of the feudal character 
of Carteret's original undertaking. During his lifetime 
Sir George remained the sole proprietor to the soil of East 
Jersey. But in 1680 the gallant old Jerseyman died and 
left his wife, the Lady Elizabeth, executrix and guardian 
of his grandson and heir. He devised to Earl Sandwich, 
Earl Bath, Hon. Bernard Grenville and others, with other 
lands, his property in East Jersey in trust for his creditors. 
These gentlemen, after some private negotiations of which 
we know little, put up the province at public sale,^ and it was 
purchased by William Penn and eleven other Friends for 
£3,400, a smaller sum than the Yorkshire group paid 
for one-tenth of West Jersey. Their deeds of lease and 
release bore date of February i and 2, 1682.^ 

The ventures of the Society of Friends in West Jersey 
had been, all things considered, exceedingly successful, and 
this is the direct explanation of the extension of their oper- 

' Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. i, 25th of 
6th month, 1689, Feb. 14, 1689. 
'Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 101-3. 
^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 366. 



20 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ations to East Jersey and Pennsylvania. Among the twelve 
original purchasers of East Jersey, none except Penn was of 
great importance. Robert West and Thomas Rudyard 
were well-known London lawyers, the latter having appar- 
ently been Penn's counsel when he was tried for holding 
illegal religious meetings.^ The rest were merchants and 
tradesmen, among them Hugh Hartshorne, brother of one 
of the early settlers of Middletown. But immediately each 
of the twelve made over one-half of his interest to an out- 
side party, thus raising the number of proprietors to twenty- 
four. The new proprietors, however, were a strange com- 
mingling of creeds, nationalities and religions.^ The five most 
prominent men among them were Scotch. These were 
the Papist Earl of Perth, who virtually conducted the gov- 
ernment of Scotland under King James ; James Drummond, 
his brother, later Viscount Melf ord ; the great Quaker phil- 
osopher, Robert Barclay, known as the author of the cele- 
brated 'Apology for the People Called Quakers ' and second 
only to Penn among the Friends; David Barclay, his 
brother, and Robert Gordon. Arent Sonmans was a Hol- 
lander resident in Scotland. Thomas Warne and Robert 
Turner were merchants of Dublin. The list also included 
Edward Byllinge and Gawen Lawrie.* 

Various reasons have been offered to account for the 
peculiar personnel of the " twenty- four." But the majority 
were Quakers, and the others were persons of especial in- 
fluence or means who were enlisted to make the enterprise 
a success. The political alliance between the Friends and 
the supporters of James Stuart is well known to all stu- 
dents of English history, and Perth and Melford were 
valuable figureheads. It may also be true that the Friends 
wished to avoid the charge of sectarianism.^ But it is a 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 164. '^ Ibid., p. 103. ^ Ibid., p. 119. 

*Ibid., pp. 1 70-181. ^Ibid., p. 119. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND 2 1 

safe inference from later events that the purchasers of 
East Jersey were not actuated by political and religious mo- 
tives to the same extent as the proprietors of West Jersey 
and Pennsylvania. The purchase of East Jersey was a 
business investment. 

In order to prevent any further possibility of conflict 
over the title, the twenty-four proprietors took the pre- 
caution of securing directly from James of York an entirely 
new grant for East Jersey according to the bounds of the 
Quintipartite deed.^ 

But the number and scattered condition of the proprietors 
made unity of action difficult. And this tendency was in- 
creased by the transfer and especially by the subdivision of 
interests which, just as in West Jersey, began immediately. 
The removal of several of the proprietors to the province 
also added an element of confusion. At the end of five 
years important changes had taken place.' Perth and Mel- 
ford had, of course, retained only fractions of their interests 
and were soon to be removed from further participation in 
proprietary as well as other affairs by the overthrow of the 
Stuarts. Penn always retained his interest, but his chief 
efforts now centered in his own province. Of the remain- 
ing shares all but four had in effect been divided, several 
into small fractions like twentieths and thirty-seconds. The 
largest single interest was held by the estate of Arent Son- 
mans who, in 1683, had been shot by a highwayman. This 
consisted of 5^^ shares. 

The Scotch proprietors certainly manifested more inter- 
est in the province than the English. But the most active 
individual among the proprietors was William Dockwra, 
who had acquired half the share of Richard Mew and frac- 
tions of other interests. Dockwra was a merchant of 

^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 383. 
*Ibid., vol. i, p. 528. 



22 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

London, who was well known as the successful manager of 
a penny post in that city.^ Such was the confidence felt in 
him and such the difficulty of securing co-operation among 
the proprietors that in 1686 he was appointed agent, and all 
documents signed by him were to have the same validity as 
if signed by the major part of the shareholders.^ 

The difficulties caused by the removal of proprietors to 
East Jersey were diminished by the establishment, in August 
1684, of the " board of proprietors " consisting of all pro- 
prietors present in the Province and resembling closely the 
later council of proprietors of West Jersey. Acting with 
the deputy-governor, it had control of all matters relating 
to the proprietary interests and especially of transfers of 
land.^ 

The members of this board certainly did constitute in a 
sense a provincial aristocracy, although they were regarded 
with dislike by a large element in the population. This 
feeling was intensified by the fact that the most prominent 
of the proprietors in East Jersey were Scotch,* and that 
they resided chiefly at Perth Amboy. Among this group 
John Barclay, brother of Robert and David Barclay, George 
Willocks, at one time proprietary agent for the sale of quit- 
rents, Thomas Gordon, and Peter Sonmans, eldest son of 
Arent Sonmans, were conspicuous. ° 

But the ablest man among the later proprietors was un- 
doubtedly Col. Lewis Morris. Col. Morris was the nephew 
and adopted son of Col. Lewis Morris of Barbadoes and 
hence a member of that great family which produced so 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 216. 

' New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 506. 

^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 16. 

* New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. iii, p. 14. 

* Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy 
(New York, 1856), pp. 43, 60, 75, 80. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP IN LAND 23 

many distinguished public men. Though of Welsh descent 
he was born in his father's manor at Morrisania, New York, 
and bred in America. Because of the great family interests 
in New York he appears almost as prominently in the af- 
fairs of that colony as in those of New Jersey, and his en- 
tire career from his entrance upon public life in 1692 is 
sufficient proof of his unusual energy and ability. Morris 
appears to have been, however, masterful in disposition and 
perhaps a little eccentric, a man to raise difficulties rather 

than to quiet them.' . . 

Well indeed would it have been for the proprietors if 
they could have worked in harmony. But it was perhaps 
hardly to be expected that the division of so great a stake as 
the soil of East Jersey could be accomplished among men of 
such varving interests without acrimony. The clash natur- 
ally cam; between Dockwra and the Scotch Perth-Amboy 
group, represented especially by George Willocks. In 
August 1701, Willocks appeared before the governor and 
council'of East Jersey and formally accused Dockwra of 
usurping power and of being guilty of fraud in the taking 
up of lands. A petition was also presented from certain 
of the resident proprietors asking that Dockwra be sus- 
pended from his office of chief secretary and register. 
But the government of East Jersey would do no more than 
recommend to the proprietors in England that Dockwra be 
suspended unless he disprove the accusations. 

Thus attacked, Dockwra and his allies, among whom 
Peter Sonmans was most conspicuous, adopted the desperate 
course of joining with the foes of the proprietary order in 
East Jersey and casting their influence with the home 

« The Papers of Lewis Morris, Collections of N. J. Hist. Soc, vol. 
iv, Introductory Memoir. 
*New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. xiii. pp. 283-292. 



24 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



government against Morris and the Scotch interest.^ This 
clash of interests undoubtedly weakened the proprietorship 
in its struggles against the forces of disorder in the Pro- 
vince and complicated the many questions to be settled 
when the proprietors were at length compelled to surrender 
their political powers to the Crown. 

Thus, though the conditions of the proprietorship in East 
Jersey in some respects resembled fhose of the sister pro- 
vince on the Delaware, the advantage from the point of 
view of the public interest was decidedly with the latter. 
Yet, as we shall see, the proprietors of East Jersey had by 
far the greater obstacles against which to contend. In both 
the Jerseys results had come about entirely unlike those in 
any other northern colony and resembling only remotely 
the developments in the Carolinas. The changes in the 
proprietorships of the Jerseys during the period immedi- 
ately before the institution of the Royal Government indi- 
cate also in an unmistakable way the coming of a new 
century in which new ideals and motives were to prevail. 
The New Jersey of Carteret and of Penn had been re- 
placed by the New Jersey of Dockwra, of Willocks and of 
the West Jersey Society. 

'Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 217. 



CHAPTER II 

Sources and Character of the Population of the 

Jerseys 

While it is impossible in a brief study of this character 
to give any lengthy description of the original settlement of 
the Jerseys, certain facts concerning their colonial popula- 
tion which had great effect upon the development of their 
institutions must be pointed out. 

The Dutch efforts to colonize in the territory which later 
became New Jersey were certainly a failure, owing partly to 
the hostility of the Indians. As a result of their attempts 
there remained at the time of the English conquest only the 
small though compact settlement at Bergen and a few scat- 
tered boweries along the Hudson.^ The Dutch element thus 
established in the population of the province persisted, how- 
ever, and was reinforced during the English rule by the 
further removal to New Jersey of Dutch settlers from New 
York.- In what later became Bergen County the Dutch 
continued to predominate. They made themselves felt in 
the politics of the colony, nevertheless, mainly by their in- 
activity, for they evidently shared in only a small degree the 
thoughts and feelings which actuated the rest of the popu- 
lation. 

The real development of East Jersey was due to the great 
wave of immigration which came from New England, 

^Winfield, History of Hudson County (New York, 1874). 
' There was also an interesting Huguenot settlement on the Hacken- 
sack. 

[25 



26 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

chiefly by way of Long Island, as soon as English authority 
was established. The greater part of the New England 
settlers were from the old jurisdiction of New Haven ^ and 
thus represented one of the most extreme types of New 
England training and thought. To them proprietary in- 
stitutions with their semi-feudal incidents were not only un- 
familiar but repugnant. The immigrants settled in "towns" 
in true New England style and conducted their public busi- 
ness by town meeting. As a preliminary step to founding 
their new towns they bound themselves into associations, 
regulating by mutual agreement the distribution of lands 
and other town relations. But though the settlers of Eliz- 
abethtown and Newark seem to have been Puritans of a 
rather reactionary type, in the other towns signs of religious 
indifference were not lacking. 

The settlement of the Monmouth tract was, however, 
somewhat distinct from that of the rest of East Jersey. 
Though the original colonists were themselves mainly from 
Long Island, they were Quakers and Baptists, receiving sym- 
pathy and support from Rhode Island rather than Connecti- 
cut or New Haven.^ For some time their relations with 
the men of Elizabethtown and Newark were by no means 
close. 

Thus three zones of colonization can be distinguished 
in East Jersey : the Dutch zone in Bergen County, the Con- 
necticut zone covering the original Essex and Middlesex 
Counties, and the Rhode Island zone in Monmouth. 

Though a few colonists are known to have arrived direct 
from England or from the southern colonies and the West 
Indies, their relative number was small during the pro- 

'Levermore, Republic of New Haven (Baltimore, 1886). 
'Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, 1890), 
p. 16. 



POPULATION OF THE JERSEYS 



27 



prietorship of Carteret. Several of these persons were, 
however, men of influence.^ 

But with the establishment of the power of the twenty- 
four proprietors came several changes. Though immigra- 
tion from New England continued, it now took the form 
of merely individual removal. On the other hand the new 
owners of the province encouraged emigration from the 
Lowlands of Scotland, where the Covenanters were under- 
going their cruel persecution at the hands of the Stuarts. 
The religious and social difference between the incoming 
Scotch peasants and the older " planters " was certainly not 
great and therefore assimilation was not difficult. The 
newcomers were, however, without the peculiar New Eng- 
land training and instincts, and moreover, in the days be- 
fore the Union, the old national jealousy of England and 
Scotland was still intense." Much therefore as New Jersey 
later owed to the sturdy Scotch element among her people, 
their arrival certainly did something to increase her discord. 

The Scotch influence, however, made itself felt most im- 
mediately by the settlement of many of the Scotch proprie- 
tors themselves in Perth Amboy and vicinity. Few of the 
larger English shareholders removed to the province. But 
Barclay, Gordon, Willocks, Johnstone and others undoubt- 
edly constituted a sort of Scotch aristocracy which became 
one of the great political forces in the colony.' These 
wealthier Scots were, it may be noted, chiefly supporters 
of the Church of England,* and Willocks, at least, was a 

'Notably Robert Vauquillin and James Bollen, who accompanied 
Governor Philip Carteret from England; and the West Indians, John 
Berry and William Sandford. 
"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 288; vol. ii, p. 544; vol. iii, p. 14- 
^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. iii, pp. i3-iS- 
* Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
pp. 2i8-g, 222-3. 



28 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Jacobite/ By the New England settlers and their descen- 
dants they were regarded with dislike.^ 

With a population thus constituted the peculiar confused 
and turbulent character of the earlier history of East Jersey 
is not at all astonishing. The very nature of the case pro- 
duced a proprietary following stronger in influence than 
numbers. The New England element, opposed to every- 
thing for which the proprietors stood, were hostile, some- 
times passively but often actively. Between stood the 
Dutch, neutral usually, because they had little share in the 
feelings which lay at the bottom of all the conflicts. 

When East Jersey passed into the hands of the twenty- 
four proprietors it had a population of over 5,000, of whom 
two-thirds lived in the towns. ^ But no later figures are 
available until the establishment of royal rule. Besides 
Bergen, the province contained the towns of Elizabethtown, 
Newark, Woodbridge, Piscataway, Middletown and 
Shrewsbury. The twenty-four had with much effect es- 
tablished Perth Amboy as their capital, but it did not pos- 
sess the New England town government. 

The population of West Jersey, as compared with that of 
the sister province, was homogeneous. Aside from the set- 
tlement of a few Swedish families on Racoon Creek ^ no 
permanent European establishment existed before the pro- 
vince passed into the hands of the Friends, and a large share 
of those who settled in West Jersey under the Quaker rule 
were of the English middle class, substantial artisans, trades- 

^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. v, p. 11. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 14. 

' Scot, The Model of the Government of the Province of East New 
Jersey in America, printed in Whitehead, East Jersey under the Pro- 
prietors, p. 409 et seq. 

*Shourds, History and Genealogy of Fenwick' s Colony (Bridgeton, 
1876),?. 492. , 



POPULATION OF THE JERSEYS 



29 



men and small farmers, the class which the Friends them- 
selves represented. The earliest settlers were in close sym- 
pathy with the proprietors at home, and a large number held 
proprietary interests themselves. Under these circum- 
stances such a clashing of parties as came about in East 
Jersey was impossible. Still there were not lacking on the 
Delaware some elements of difference among the colonists. 
Though the first arrivals at both Salem and Burlington 
were mainly Quakers, the later comers were by no means 
all members of or even sympathizers with the Society. 
There is, of course, no way to estimate accurately the rela- 
tive number of those who were non-Quakers, but it seems 
certain that before the establishment of royal rule they out- 
numbered the Friends.^ There was thus the possibility of 
development of parties on religious or semi-religious lines, 
a possibility of which the opponents of the proprietors did 
not fail to take advantage. 

As the settlers on the Delaware came, in the main, direct 
from England, no such town system as was developed in 
East Jersey appeared at first. Salem and Burlington, the 
latter the especial stronghold of the Quaker interest, re- 
mained for a long time the only considerable settlements. 
At about the time of the establishment of royal rule the 
population of West Jersey was estimated at 3,500, per- 
haps one-third that of East Jersey. But West Jersey was 
strong in material prosperity and in the absence of that 
contentious spirit contributed by New England to the neigh- 
boring province. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 305. Daniel Leeds was, however, 
a determined foe of the Quakers. 



CHAPTER III 
The Land System of East Jersey 

Having examined hurriedly the character of the proprie^ 
tors and of the proprietorship so far as it was a form of land 
ownership and having noted the nature of the population 
which settled in East Jersey we must next consider more 
closely the manner in which the land of the province actually 
passed from the hands of the lords of the soil into those of 
the colonists. This study will afford much insight into the 
relations existing between them. In this chapter, how- 
ever, we shall confine our attention to the proprietary land 
system in its actual workings. The interesting and im- 
portant attempts to overthrow it, especially in the case of 
the bitter Elizabethtown controversy, must receive separate 
consideration. 

The original Dutch settlers, at least, received liberal treat- 
ment at the hands of Berkeley and Carteret. The articles 
of surrender of New Netherland expressly promised that 
all lands held within the limits of the province should be 
confirmed to their owners,^ and this promise Berkeley and 
Carteret faithfully fulfilled in the case of all lands actually 
taken up and occupied. The only conditions required were 
the highly reasonable ones that the owners should take the 
oath of allegiance to the King and of fidelity to the lords 
proprietors and fulfill the requirements laid down for the 
patenting of their lands.^ 

' Brodhead, New York, vol. i, p. 762. 

'The confirmatory grants were issued in accordance with the require- 
ments of the " Concessions." 
30] 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 



31 



In September, 1665 Governor Philip Carteret and coun- 
cil granted to the town and freeholders of Bergen town- 
ship bounds including about 11,520 acres, express reserva- 
tion, however, being made of quit rent.^ The bounds began 
at a place called Mordams Meadow, lying on the west side 
of the Hudson; from thence they extended in a northwest 
" lyne " by a " three rail fence " to a place called Espartin 
and from thence to a little creek running into the Hacken- 
sack River. The Hackensack was then the limit " till it 
comes to the point or neck of land that is over against 
Staten Island or Schooters Island in Arthur Cull Bay." 
The bound was then the Kill van Kull to Constable's Hook, 
and thence the " lyne " was the Hudson to the starting-place. 

Although the Proprietors formally confirmed grants for 
numerous inhabitants of Bergen - they never gave to an in- 
dividual an original patent for lands in the township.^ The 
exact amount of land already appropriated is not known, but 
it is estimated at 3.500 acres.* The grants made to the ori- 
ginal founders of Bergen by the West India Company were 
certainly small, nearly all being 25 or 50 morgen. A mor- 
gen was about equal to two acres. '' The unappropriated 
lands amounting to about 8.000 acres, in spite of numerous 
disputes and difficulties regarding them and several efforts 
to apportion them, continued to be held by the freeholders 
of Bergen in common until 1763.® 

But in the apportionment of land to the settlers who 
came after the establishment of English control lay the real 

' Winfield, History of the Land Titles of Hudson County (New York, 
1872), vol. i, pp. 14-15. 

'These confirmations are found chiefly in liber i, East Jersey Records. 

"Winfield, op. cit., p. 14. '■Ibid., p. 15. 

'O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland (New York, 1855). vol. 
ii, pp. 588-589. 

•Winfield, op. cit., pp. 15-24. 



32 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



test of the wisdom of the proprietors. On February lo, 
1664, Berkeley and Carteret issued " the Concessions and 
Agreements of the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey to and 
with all and every the adventurers and all such as shall 
settle and plant there." ^ The Concessions were intended to 
provide a suitable form of government for the new colony, 
to encourage settlers by a guarantee of liberties, and to re- 
gulate the distribution of land. In all these matters they 
were fair and liberal to as great a degree as could reason- 
ably be expected in a proprietary province. 

The Concessions declared that all persons already in New 
Jersey or who should transport themselves thither before 
January i, 1665-6, and who should meet the governor upon 
his arrival and who should be provided with "a good musket 
boare twelve bullets to the pound with ten pounds of pow- 
der and twenty pounds of bullets, with bandeleers and match 
convenient, and with six months provisions for his own per- 
son," should receive 150 acres of land, English measure. 
For every able-bodied servant similarly equipped that such 
person should bring with him into the province, he was to 
receive the same amount. For every able-bodied servant 
properly armed sent into New Jersey, even if the master 
himself did not remove, 150 acres were likewise offered. 
For every weaker servant or slave, male or female over 
fourteen years, 75 acres were given, and every Christian 
servant was to receive 75 acres upon the expiration of his 
term of service. 

Every master or mistress who should remove to New 
Jersey before January i, 1665-6 was to receive 120 acres 
of land and the same amount for every able-bodied servant 
properly provided. For each weaker servant the premium 
was 60 acres with the same amount for each Christian 

' New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 28. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 33 

servant at the end of his time. For the second year, down 
to January i, 1666-7, the offer was 90 acres for masters 
and able-bodied servants ; 45 acres were to be given for 
weaker servants and as a servant's reward. For the third 
year, down to January 1667-8, the corresponding amounts 
were 60 acres and 30 acres. But all such lands were to be 
held subject to the condition that for the ensuing 13 years 
one able-bodied servant or two weaker ones were to be 
maintained upon every 100 acres. Upon failure in this re- 
gard, after a space of three years after notification had been 
given, the lords proprietors were to have the power of 
disposing of the lands to other parties unless the assembly 
of the colony should judge that, owing to poverty or other 
cause, the fulfillment of the conditions was impossible. 

The governor and council (and assembly if any be) 
were to see that all the land should be divided into " general 
lots," none less than 2100 acres nor more than 21,000, 
excepting " cities," towns, etc., and the '' near lotts of town- 
ships," and these were to be divided into seven parts, one of 
which was to be reserved for the lords proprietors. 

The method by which the land was to be taken up was 
minutely regulated as follows: the governor was to give 
to each person to whom land was due a warrant signed and 
sealed by himself and the major part of his council and 
directed to the surveyor general or his deputy to lay out, 
limit or bound the required number of acres. After the re- 
gister of the Province had recorded the warrant and at- 
tested the record upon the warrant, the surveyor general 
was to certify to the chief secretary or register the name 
of the person for whom he had laid out the land, by virtue 
of what authority, the date of the warrant, the number of 
acres and their bounds. This certificate was likewise to be 
entered in a book by the register which was to have an 
alphabetical table so that the certificates could be more easily 



34 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



found. The certificates having been duly entered, the gov-. 
ernor and the major part of the council v^ere to sign a 
second warrant directing the register to prepare a grant 
of land to the proper person. A form was then specified 
in the Concessions according to which all patents must run. 
The form distinctly stated that the land granted was to be 
held in free and common socage, but subject to a yearly 
quit-rent of one-half penny per acre to the lords proprie- 
tors. Said quit-rent, however, was not to begin until 
March 25, 1670. All grants were to be sealed by the gov- 
ernor with the seal of the province and to be subscribed by 
him and the council. They were then once more to be re- 
corded by the register in a book of records and were there- 
after to be effectual in law. According to this method all 
conveyances from the proprietors would be recorded three 
times in the stages usually referred to as " warrants for 
surveys," " surveys," and " patents." 

The Concessions further stated that in towns and villages 
convenient lands were to be granted for forts, churches, 
streets, etc., and each parish was to have 200 acres for the 
support of the minister. All such lands were to be free 
from taxation. But all cities and towns were like other 
tracts to be divided into seven parts, one of which was to 
be for the lords proprietors. Free passage to the sea 
through all rivers, creeks, etc. was guaranteed to all settlers, 
and it was declared that the representatives -of the free- 
holders should at all times be free to make any petition for 
redress of grievances to the lords proprietors either with or 
without the consent of the governor and council. 

Such were the leading provisions of the Concessions 
grouped together as relating exclusively to land. But in 
the other parts of the document there were also several im- 
portant paragraphs regarding the land system. The offices 
of chief secretary or register and of surveyor general 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 



35 



were provided for. Their incumbents were to be appointed 
by the lords proprietors, but might be suspended by the 
governor and a majority of the council.^ In the clauses 
relating to the assembly it was set down that that body 
had power to prescribe the quantities of land which 
should be from time to time alloted to every head, free or 
servant, male or female and to ordain rules for the casting 
of lots for land and the laying out of the same, provided 
that they did not exceed the proportions set down by the 
Concessions." Under the duties of the governor and coun- 
cil it was also stated that, for the better security of the 
proprietors and all the inhabitants, they were to take care 
that all land quietly held and possessed for seven years after 
its first survey by the surveyor general or his order should 
not be subject to any review, resurvey, or alteration of 
bounds;^ 

As the Concessions were the basis of the land system of 
East Jersey this statement of their leading provisions is 
necessary. It is to be admitted, however, that they present 
little that is peculiar. Upon the whole they are a credit to 
the liberality and common sense of Carteret and his asso- 
ciate, nor could they be fairly expected to foresee the diffi- 
culties to which they were to give rise. The proprietors 
at once took steps to put them into operation by commis- 
sioning Philip Carteret as governor,* and Robert Vauquil- 
lin as surveyor general.'^ James Bollen was appointed re- 
gister by the governor." 

But the circumstances of the settlement of East Jersey 
rendered it practically impossible to carry out the Con- 
cessions, during the first decade at any rate, in the spirit in 

'^New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, pp. 28-29. 
^Ibid., vol. i, p. 34. ^Ibid., vol. i, p. Z7- 

^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 20, ^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 26. 

"Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 59. 



36 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

which they had been intended. The New Englanders who 
came to occupy the lands had been accustomed to different 
methods. They settled not individually, but by companies 
of associates. Having obtained the legal right to purchase 
their lands of the Indians they wished to apportion what they 
had obtained in their own way.^ Moreover, any proprie- 
tary system with its semi-feudal associations was to them 
not only unfamiliar, but repugnant. The payment of quit- 
rents especially was certain to be a burden to which they 
would not cheerfully submit. 

When Governor Carteret arrived in the province the 
Monmouth purchase, sanctioned by Nicolls, was already oc- 
cupied. At least four families were at Elizabethtown," but 
Carteret by the purchase of John Bailey's interest became 
himself a member of the associates.^ The settlements of 
Woodbridge, Piscataway and Newark were all made on 
Carteret's invitation and by his consent.* But in spite of 
the fact that the men of Elizabethtown and Woodbridge at 
any rate readily took the oath of fidelity to Berkeley and 
Carteret,^ the requirements of the Concessions regarding 
the laying out and patenting of lands were not complied 
with in any of the towns. Apparently Governor Carteret 
did not press this at first, being willing no doubt to let 
the m.atter rest until the first struggles with the wilderness 
were past. 

'The New England method is clearly stated by Daniel Denton, ^4 
Brief Description of New York, formerly called New Netherlands (re- 
print, New York, 1845), p. 17. 

^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 183. 

^Hatfield, History of Elizabeth (New York, 1868), p. 51; Elizabeth- 
town Bill in Chancery, p. 29. 

^ Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 48-50; Elizabeth- 
town Bill in Chancery, pp. 29-32. 

'■'New Jersey Archives (first series), pp. 50-51. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 37 

The settlers of Elizabethtown were originally divided 
into three classes, known as first lot men, second lot men, 
and third lot men. In all divisions of land after that of 
the home lots it was understood that a second lot man was 
to have twice and a third lot man three times as much as 
a first lot man.^ It is believed by Hatfield that the first 
surveys were made previous to the arrival of Carteret and 
Vauquillin, " possibly by Wolphertsen, who had been the 
city surveyor of New Amsterdam," and that the shares 
were assigned by lot as in the case of Newark.^ Neverthe- 
less in December, 1667, Carteret, acting apparently upon 
a petition of some of the inhabitants, commissioned John 
Brackett '' in the absence of the surveyor general to lay 
out for each man his house lot which was to consist of four 
acres and a pittle, or addition to it, of about twenty acres. 
The Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery asserts that the first 
apportionment of land was agreed upon with the con- 
sent of Governor Carteret, and consisted of amounts of 6, 
12, and 18 acres to the holders of the respective rights. 
Shortly afterward there was a second division of 12, 24, 
and 36 acres.* But the historian of Elizabethtown main- 
tains that the work of Brackett must have consisted only in 
rectifying the errors of the earlier surveys and in laying ofif 
the shares of newcomers.^ Positive evidence does not 
sustain the suppositions of Mr. Hatfield, but it is at any 
rate clear that, though the lands were laid off before 1670, 
no patents were taken out by any persons of Elizabethtown 
previous to that date. 

When the sale of half the Elizabethtown tract was made 

^Answer to the Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 22. 
'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 56. 122, 
^ East Jersey Records, liber iii. p. 12. 
^Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 32. 
* Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 123. 



38 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

by Carteret, Ogden, and Watson to Daniel Pierce and his 
associates for the settlement of the two new townships of 
VVoodbridge and Piscataway, the first article of the contract 
gave permission to the newcomers to lay out their lands 
according to their own judgment, but not exceeding the 
proportions laid down in the Concessions. The fifth article, 
however, not only required the payment of the quit-rent, but 
also stated that all lands should be patented and surveyed 
by the surveyor general.^ In December, 1667, Daniel 
Pierce himself was commissioned as deputy surveyor for 
the Woodbridge district. The apportionment of the land 
made by him at this time, however, was not complete, a 
large part of the tract, as in Elizabethtown, being left for 
later division.^ But in spite of the part taken by Governor 
Carteret in arranging the settlement of Woodbridge, no 
patents appear to have been taken out in either that town or 
Piscataway previous to 1670. 

As for the settlers of the Monmouth Patent, and of 
Newark, they recognized in no way the control of the 
proprietors over the land within their bounds. In Newark 
the lands were apportioned by lot in town meeting in true 
New England style. ^ The same method was followed in 
Middletown,* and there was no pretense of patenting land 
under the Concessions. 

The year 1670 is an important point in the development 
of the land system of East Jersey, because the effort to 
collect quit-rent began at that time, and thus forced upon 
the attention of the settlers the requirements of the Con- 

^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 29. 

"Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
P- 357- 

^Newark Town Records {Coll. N. J. Hist. Soc, vol. vi), pp. 5, 
7-9. IS. 

* Town Book of Old Middleiown, pp. 1-3. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 39 

cessions. Berkeley and Carteret must have supposed that 
the postponement of quit-rent for the first seven years 
would be a liberal encouragement to the pioneers of the 
colony. But the result was unfortunate, for when the rent 
came due it seemed to many of the settlers like a new and 
burdensome exaction. With the details of the struggle 
which ensued between the proprietors and a considerable 
part of the inhabitants over the payment of rent and the 
patenting of land we need not here concern ourselves. 
Suffice it to say that the proprietors were at length victor- 
ious although their triumph was postpoined by the Dutch 
reconquest of 1673-4. 

As a step in the enforcement of their rights, however, 
Berkeley and Carteret issued a document known as " a De- 
claration of the True Intent and Meaning of the Conces- 
sions," which really modified some of their provisions re- 
specting land. No person was henceforth to be counted a 
freeholder or to have any vote in any election or to be 
eligible for any office in the colony who did not hold his 
lands by patent from the lords proprietors. It was speci- 
fically declared that the governor and council had the right 
to " dispose of the Allotment of Land " without the general 
assembly, which of course was always likely to be under 
anti-proprietary control. The regular laying out of lands 
and the apportionment of house-lots was to be left to the 
first " undertakers " upon agreement with the governor 
and council. The consent of the assembly was not needed. 
This provision was, of course, a recognition of the method 
of settlement by companies of associates.' But in this case 
as all others the lands were to be actually laid out by the 
surveyor general. Finally it was stated that all warrants 
for lands not exceeding the proportions in the Concessions 
should be effectual if signed by the governor and the secre- 
^New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 99- 



40 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



tary alone, even if the council or any portion of them were 
not present. These changes appear at first glance to be in 
matters of detail only, but they effectually checked the abil- 
ity of the disaffected element to thwart the proprietors' 
agents. 

Immediately after the restoration of proprietary author- 
ity, December ii, 1674, the governor and council issued a 
proclamation ordering the surveyor general or his sub- 
stitute to remain at Newark for the surveying and patenting 
of land. He was also to attend on certain days at Elizabeth- 
town, Piscataway and the Nevesinks for the same purpose.^ 

The regular patenting of lands in the disaffected towns 
thus began, and the East Jersey Records give, from this 
point on, invaluable information regarding the distribution 
of lands in the colony. The greater part of the grants of 
this period naturally lay within the township limits, and 
few of them were extensive. 

The Woodbridge patents are, speaking in a general way, 
the earliest, as the people of this town had taken little share 
in opposing the proprietors. Most of the original settlers 
took out patents even as early as 1670. Of sixty-two re- 
corded patents for this and the few following years, forty- 
four range somewhere from ninety to one hundred and 
seventy acres. Two are for smaller amounts, while the 
largest, excepting the lands reserved for the proprietors, 
is five hundred and twelve acres, the portion of John Smith, 
" milwright," one of the original purchasers. The nine ori- 
ginal purchasers were each allowed two hundred and forty 
acres of upland and forty of meadow in addition to the 
regular alloiiment. Only four grants to other persons ex- 
ceed three hundred acres. Later, however, there were four 
other :dlotments of land to each freeholder, — eighty, fifty, 

^ East Jersey Records , liber iii, p. 106. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 



41 



sixty, and twenty acres respectively, the first of these being 
in 1687 and the last in 1706.^ 

In Piscataway the result was similar. Of the sixty pa- 
tents granted before 1690, only six exceeded three hundred 
acres, while most of them range between one and two hun- 
dred.^ Of the ninety-nine surveys recorded for lands in 
Newark previous to 1700, nearly all are in the neighbor- 
hood of one hundred acres, the largest being for only two 
hundred and eighty."'' A peculiar interest naturally at- 
taches to the allotments in Elizabethtown. But they 
do not differ essentially in character from the others. The 
eighty- four warrants for surveys from 1675 to 1678 are, in 
the main, for amounts of approximately sixty, one hundred, 
one hundred and twenty, and one hundred and eighty acres. 
Seven are for amounts of between two and three hundred, 
eight between three and four hundred, and three between 
four and five hundred. The largest warrant is for 2.700 
acres for Sir George and Philip Carteret, and their eighteen 
servants. Capt. John Baker with his wife and eight others 
received 1200. The largest grants were due either to the 
purchase of interests or to the importation of servants.* 

The division of lands in the Monmouth Grant had some 
points of peculiarlity. The opposition to the proprietors by 
the people of Middletown and Shrewsbury had been es- 
pecially determined. But eventually an agreement had 
been arrived at between them and Governor Carteret by 
which, in return for their recognition of the proprietary au- 
thority, their right to dispose of the lands within the Nicolls 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
PP- 355-8; Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery; appendix, schedule vii. 

'^Whitehead, op. cit., pp. 400-3; Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery; 
appendix, schedule v. 

^Elizabethtown Billin Chancery; appendix, schedule iv. 

'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 182-184. 



42 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

grant was confirmed.^ It is not surprising therefore that 
the allotments were somewhat larger than elsewhere. Of 
thirty-two patents issued to inhabitants of Middletown in 
1676 and 1677, ^^^^ majority are for over two hundred 
acres. Seven are over four hundred and fifty acres. Rich- 
ard Hartshorne received seven hundred and fifty, Peter 
Tilton five hundred and seventy, James Grover ten hundred 
and seventy-seven, Jonathan Holmes seven hundred and 
sixty-one, and Richard Gibbons five hundred.' 
"^ The provisions of the Concessions appear to have been 
carried out without serious modifications or omissions until 
the province passed out of the hands of Carteret and his 
heirs in 1682. One interesting feature of their operation 
was the granting of " headlands " to settlers for the im- 
portation of relatives and servants. Under date of 1675, 
appears in the East Jersey Records the statement : " Here 
begins the Rights of Land due according to the Conces- 
sions," and this is followed by a statenient of claims entered 
for lands.^ Those recognized as allowed foot up in all 
to over 12,000 acres. It is noticeable, however, that most 
of the persons imported were members of the families of 
settlers, — wives, sons, and daughters. The total number of 
white servants would hardly reach fifty, but the number of 
negroes is larger, thirty-two being brought by Capt. John 
Berry." Some of the lands thus granted were laid off 
within the limits of the townships, notably in Elizabeth- 
town.'' 

But during the regime of Carteret there were several 

^ New Jersey Archives (first series), vol. i, p. 88. 

* East Jersey Records, liber i. A complete summary of early surveys 
in the Monmouth Patent is given in Salter's History of Monmouth and 
Ocean Counties, pp. 29-32. 

^ East Jersey Records, liber iii, p. i (reversed side). 

^ Ibid., liber iii, p. i (reversed side). 

^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 44. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 43 

grants of another character, extensive transfers of land out- 
side of the towns. The most interesting of these is that of 
3,840 acres at Shrewsbury to Col. Lewis Morris of Barba- 
does and his associates in establishing iron-works there. 
This grant was to be known as Tinton Manor. ^ In 1668 
all the meadow and upland between the Hackensack and 
the Passaic, south of a line drawn seven miles north from 
their intersection, was granted to Captain William Sanford. 
By a special arrangement he paid twenty pounds sterling 
per annum instead of the usual quit-rent." Nathaniel 
Kingsland, also a West Indian, later became interested in 
this grant. ^ In 1669 Capt. John Berry and his associates 
obtained a tract adjoining Sanford's, extending north " six 
miles into the Country." * The name New Barbadoes was 
applied to this locality, now Rutherford and vicinity." A 
little later William Pinhorne acquired by purchase of Ed- 
ward Earle, Jr. a plantation of over one thousand acres at 
Snake Hill." In April, 1682, Lawrence Andriesse of Bergen 
obtained a patent for 1076 acres at Hackensack,' and a few 
days later Philip Carteret, Mathias Nicols, Jacob Courtillou 
and other associates received another for a tract lying along 
Passaic River, known as Aqueyquinonke, containing 5320 
acres.® There were also other large grants. We may in- 
fer that most of the persons concerned in these intended to 
sell off their estates in smaller quantities later. But Berry 

^ East Jersey Records , liber i, p. 155, 

* Ibid., p. zy, Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 54. 

* East Jersey Records, liber i, p. 130. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 55; East Jersey 
Records, liber i, p. 46. 

^Mellick, Story of an Old Farm (Somerville, 1889), p. 118; White- 
head, East Jersey tinder the Proprietors, p. 55. 
*Winfield, History of the Land Titles of Hudson County, p. 130. 
"* East Jersey Records, liber iv, p. 6. *Ibid,. liber iv, p. 8. 



44 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

and Pinhorne at any rate maintained 'extensive plantations 
with negro slaves.^ 

Speaking in general, however, we may safely say that 
during the Carteret period the soil of East Jersey was being 
taken up in comparatively small allotments by bona-fide set- 
tlers. Anything like a system of large estates was un- 
known, nor was land speculation being carried on to any 
great extent, except of course by the lords proprietors 
themselves. The purchase of East Jersey by the twenty- 
four proprietors marks, however, an important change in 
the development of the land system. This change was not 
so much in the mechanical features as in the spirit and ob- 
jects with which it was carried out and the results produced. 

The provisions of the Concessions relating to land were 
with some modifications continued by the Twenty-four.^ In 
their " Brief Account." issued immediately after the pur- 
chase, however, they offered new inducements to settlers. 
All persons who would transport themselves and their fami- 
lies into the province by December 25, 1684, were to receive 
twenty-five acres for each head, such land to be taken up in 
one of the townships already settled and laid out. If any 
desired more land they might purchase up to the limit of 
one hundred acres. The charge of quit-rent which had al- 
ready caused such trouble was continued. The new pro- 
prietors were, however, wise enough to provide that " who- 
soever is willing to buy off his yearly rent and become a free- 
holder may do so, paying after the rate of twelve years pur- 
chase, which comes to fifty shilling for a lot of twenty-five 
acres and so paying for the same rate for a greater or less 
quantity." '' Tlie bounty or head-land granted to colonists 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 406. 
^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 17. 
'Smith, New Jersey, appendix, pp. 545-6. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 45 

was later continued till January 13, 1685-6, but was then 
discontinued.^ 

One of the first plans of the new proprietors was the lay- 
ing out of a capital town or city. For this purpose they 
selected Ambo Point, which had hitherto been kept unoc- 
cupied as being the one-seventh of the Elizabethtown tract 
reserved for the proprietors. One thousand five hundred 
acres were to be divided into one hundred and fifty equal 
lots, of which (3ne hundred were to be sold and fifty reserved 
for such of the proprietors as should reside in the province. 
The lots were to be sold for fifteen pounds up to December 
25, 16S2, and for twenty pounds to Christmas, 1683. The 
proprietors further declared their intention each to build and 
maintain a house in the new city, and extra inducements 
were offered to carpenters, masons, and laborers of all sorts 
to persuade them to remove there.^ The town was actually 
laid out according to the foregoing plan by Samuel Groome, 
the new surveyor general, though later it was rearranged 
by Governor Gawen Lawrie.^ 

But the main interest of the new owners was, of course, 
the subdivision of the unoccupied lands of the province. 
Whatever their other motives, the business side of their ven- 
ture was never lost sight of. It was therefore determined 
that, as a first dividend of the province, 10,000 acres should 
be " set out " for each of the twenty-four proprietors. For 
this purpose convenient tracts were ordered to be surveyed, 
and these were to be divided into either three or two parts, 
as might be more convenient, one part being for eight or 

^Elizabethtown Billin Chancery, p. 16. 

■'Smith, op. cit., appendix, pp. S43-4; New Jersey Archives, vol. i, 
p. 434; Whiteliead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Am- 
boy, pp. 3-6. 

' Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
pp. 5-1 1. 



46 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

twelve proprietors as the case might be. The parts were 
then to be subdivided.^ Later, upon the demand of the 
Scotch proprietors, it was ordered that the lands should al- 
ways be divided into two parts, of which one was to be for 
the Scots and those adventuring with them.^ Those who 
had purchased the fractions of interests were, of course, to 
receive proportional amounts of land from the first divi- 
dend, that is, five hundred acres were to go to the holder 
of one-twentieth, etc.^ 

In spite of the continuance of the Concessions of Berke- 
ley and Carteret, certain changes did come with the advent 
of the Twenty-four in the method of granting lands. This 
was caused by the institution in 1684 of the council of 
proprietors.* In the previous year the proprietors had is- 
sued a new constitution for East Jersey, known as the "Fun- 
damental Constitutions " designed to replace the Conces- 
sions as the basis for the government of the colony, but 
owing to the indifference of the settlers this elaborate plan 
never went into effect. It provided in one of its clauses for 
a body known as " a common council " to consist of the 
twenty-four proprietors or their proxies, and twelve es- 
pecially elected freemen, to whom certain important func- 
tions were to be given. To have a seat in the council a 
proprietor must, however, retain a fourth part of his pro- 
priety, and if through sub-division no person held such 
proportion then those holding smaller interests were to 
choose one to represent them.^ 

Now although the Fundamental Constitutions became a 
dead letter, the proprietors by special instruction to Gawen 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 427, 452; Elizabethtown Bill in 
Chancery, p. 16. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 448. ^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 452. 

* Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, pp. 16-17. 
''New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 395. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 47 

Lawrie, their governor, under date of August i, 1684, or- 
dered the estabHshment of the council, naming proxies who 
were themselves in most cases persons holding proprietary 
interests resident in the province. The idea of having mem- 
bers representing the freemen was of course dropped.^ To 
this council of proprietors was intrusted all such rrjatters 
relative to the proprietary interest as needed settlement upon 
the soil of the province. Naturally these had to do es- 
pecially with the land system, with such things as the dis- 
posing of the lots in Perth Amboy, the purchasing of land 
from the Indians, the renting of lands to settlers, etc.' But 
the most important function of the council was the examin- 
tion of the right of all claimants to land-titles, and at least 
five proprietors must sign an order to the governor before 
he was to issue his warrant to the surveyor general for the 
further laying off of the land. This method began No- 
vember 13, 1684.^ 

With this modification the manner of granting lands re- 
mained as before. The warrants and returns of surveys 
were still recorded by the proprietary register, and patents 
issued in about the old form till 1703. In the case of lands 
set out for proprietors no quit-rent was required. 

From the beginning many difficulties beset the Twenty- 
four, not the least of which was that of finding competent 
and honorable officers and agents. They began by naming 
the respected Robert Barclay governor of the province, but 
it was never intended that the distinguished author should 
rule the province in person. Thomas Rudyard, one of the 
proprietors and a well-known London lawyer, was therefore 
commissioned as deputy governor.* But he quarreled with 

^ N^ew Jersey Archives,vo\. i, p. 459. ^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 461. 

^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 17. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 119-121. 



48 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the surveyor general and moreover was guilty of taking ad- 
vantage of his position to secure especially desirable land. 
He v^^as therefore superseded by the Quaker Gaw^en Lawrie, 
in September, 1683/ Lawrie proved even more remiss, 
disobeying the orders of the proprietors in several respects 
and also proving too shrewd in his own interest." The 
proprietors then made the mistake of naming Lord Neil 
Campbell, brother of the Duke of Argyle who had just re- 
belled and lost his life.^ Campbell had little interest in 
New Jersey and remained only until it was safe for him to 
return to Scotland.* At length, December 10, 1686, upon 
the withdrawal of Campbell the control passed into the 
hands of an efficient and able man, the Scot, Andrew Hamil- 
ton.^ But when, in 1697, it was found necessary because of 
certain technicalities to supersede him, an untrustworthy 
adventurer, Jeremiah Basse, was commissioned.* 

In their choice of other officers the proprietors were some- 
what more fortunate. Their first selection as surveyor 
general was Samuel Groome, a proprietor who served 
efficiently, but who was practically superseded under Gov- 
ernor Rudyard by Philip Wells.' Groome died soon after, 
and the surveyor-generalship was then held for a short 
time by William Haige.** But in August, 1684, the cele- 
brated George Keith was commissioned. His tenure is 
notable because of his work in running the dividing line 
between East and West Jersey." Upon Keith's withdrawal 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 423. ^I6td., vol. i, pp. 492, 531. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 153-4- 

* Ibid., pp. 152-7, 226. 'Ibid., p. 157. 

^ Ibid., pp. 195, 229; New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 91 (note). 
'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 130. 

"Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 14. 
^Ibid., p. 17. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY ^g 

to Pennsylvania, John Barclay was appointed, April, 1692,^ 
with John Reid as deputy and substitute. Reid eventually 
succeeded to the office in 1702." 

The receiver-generalship was usually connected with the 
office of surveyor general. Both Groome ^ and Haige, 
were commissioned as receivers general. Keith, however, 
does not seem to have acted as treasurer. Instead, upon 
the death of Haige, the proprietors, July, 1688, named 
William Dockwra.* As Dockwra did not remove to the 
province, he authorized Governor Hamilton to collect quit- 
rents and receive other payments until he could fix upon a 
suitable deputy. Eventually, in 1C92, he named John Bar- 
clay, thus again connecting the offices of surveyor and 
receiver general.'* Two years later, however, James Dun- 
das was commissioned by Governor Hamilton.'^ Although 
George Willocks, as will be shown later, was appointed in 
1697 as special agent for the sale of the proprietors' quit- 
rents, and for the collection of arrears, no commission fill- 
ing the place of Dundas, who died in 1698, appears until the 
establishment of royal government. 

In the important office of secretary or register there were 
fewer changes. When Rudyard came out as governor he 
bore also a commission as secretary,^ and although removed 
from the governorship, he continued as secretary down to 
1685, when he left East Jersey for Barbadoes." He was 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 42; New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 81. 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 45. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 378. 

* Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amdoy, 
P- 15- 

'•/did., p. 42. ^/bid., p. 371. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 376. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 132- 



50 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



succeeded by James Emott of Elizabethtown, a terror to 
all students, because of his peculiar script.^ In 1689 the 
energetic Dockwra was commissioned by the proprietors as 
secretary and register, and Thomas Gordon was named by 
him as deputy. During Gordon's absence in England on 
a mission for the proprietors, John Barclay held the office. 
But in 1702, Thomas Gordon was again commissioned 
both as secretary of the province and register of the pro- 
prietors.^ 

It is very noticeable that, especially toward the end of 
the period, the majority of those holding office were Scotch- 
men, and one can readily appreciate why there should be 
feeling against the clique whose most prominent members 
were Gordon, Barclay, and Willocks. 

The taking up of land on a large scale by the proprie- 
tors and their assigns soon gave a very different aspect to 
the province. Thousands of acres of the most desirable 
lands, lying especially along the Bay, the Kills, the Hudson, 
and the lower courses of the rivers of the province, had al- 
ready been possessed. The new proprietors were, therefore, 
in the main, forced to content themselves with lands lying 
further back. But as was usual in such cases their surveys 
followed chiefly the valleys of the principal streams, — the 
Passaic, the Hackensack, the Shrewsbury, and the Raritan. 
The valley of the latter river, especially reaching back into 
what is now Somerset County, was rapidly taken up."'' The 
new owners and their assigns, however, also eagerly ac- 
quired the unoccupied parts of the existing townships. The 
advantageous situation of the Elizabethtown tract made it 

' Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 41. 
''Ibid., pp. 64-5. 
^ East Jersey Records, liber A and B, passim. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 



51 



especially desirable, and the surveys lying within its ori- 
ginal bounds are numerous.^ 

But the most significant thing about the new regime is 
the size, comparatively speaking, of the allotments now 
made. It is true that not many of the original Twenty-four 
contemplated retaining and planting independently their un- 
divided shares. From the beginning a subdivision of their 
estates was planned. The Scotch proprietors " and those 
adventuring with them " were most active in endeavoring 
to occupy and plant their own portions. The majority of 
the servants dispatched to East Jersey appear to have been 
sent by the Scotch proprietors," while several vessels with 
cargoes valued at many hundreds of pounds also left 
Scotch ports for Perth Amboy.''' In their instructions of 
1684, to Governor Lawrie, he was required neither to sell 
or to rent the lands laid out for the Scots at the rates agreed 
upon by the other proprietors, as they had " a prospect of 
turning it to a better account." * On the other hand it ap- 
pears, however, that the Scots were particularly active 
in selling subdivisions of their shares.** Of the other 
proprietors some at least neglected to occupy and improve 
their dividends, thus giving rise to deserved complaints that 
they were retarding the development of the province. 

The accommodating of " small purchasers " received 
much attention from the proprietors, and was the subject 
of lengthy instructions to their officers in East Jersey. In 
1684 it was agreed that small purchasers should at once 
receive their shares of land out of the dividends of the pro- 
prietors from whom they had bought, and that if any share 

^ Elizabethtown Billin Chancery, appendix, schedule iii. 
"^East Jersey Records, liber A, pp. 154, 184, iq6, 266, etc.; White- 
head gives a list, East Jersey tuider the Proprietors, p. 136 (note). 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 464, etc. ^ Ibid., vol, i, p. 449. 

''East Jersey Records, liber A, passim. 



52 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



did not amount to five hundred acres, it should nevertheless 
be made up to that amount if the purchaser so desired. 
If a proprietor had sold so many shares his entire dividend 
of the 10,000 acres v^as to be taken, if necessary, to accom- 
modate each with the required five hundred acres, pro- 
vided that he had not sent servants or done anything to 
improve his land. And if still more was required, it 
might be taken from the unimproved land of some other 
proprietor. Care, however, was to be taken to reprise 
tihe proprietors whose land was taken, out of the next 
dividend of the 10,000 acres, and the small purchaser was 
to have no more land in the later dividends than his own 
share came to unless he had already improved his first five 
hundred acres. ^ 

In 1685, after the proprietors at length understood the 
mismanagement of Rudyard and Lawrie, they issued a 
further order regarding the laying-out of the lands which was 
even more specific. It was now set down that each owner 
of a propriety or half a propriety should have 1000 acres set 
out to him on the first dividend, and should settle at least a 
family with three working hands thereon. Each person hav- 
ing a less share should have five hundred acres on the same 
condition. Thus lands were to be set out until the entire 10,- 
000 acres agreed upon had been filled. Then further al- 
lotment was to stop on that propriety for three years until 
the other proprietors had a chance " to come up to the like 
quantity." But after a space of three years those con- 
cerned in said propriety might take up another 10,000 
acres, provided that they settled just double the number of 
persons on the second division as on the first. All laiids 
already taken up, however, were to stand as portions of 
the first division. It was also ordained thait each proprietor 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 471. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 53 

must retain at least a sufficient share of his interest to 
qualify him as a proprietor according tc) the Fundamental 
Constitutions.^ 

But in spite of the subdivision of interests, the tracts of 
land surveyed and taken up under the Twenty-four greatly 
exceeded in size those patented under Berkeley and Car- 
teret, when patents of even five hundred acres were rather 
rare. For example, within the disputed Elizabethtown 
tract we find that thirty-eight surveys are recorded from 
1683 to 1703 for tracts of five hundred acres or over. Of 
these no less than twenty-three exceeded one thousand 
acres. Eight surveys were over two thousand. William 
Dockwra had five thousand acres along the Passaic ; Camp- 
bell and Blackwood obtained 3.900; Peter Sonmans, 2,800, 
while the Peapack Tract acquired by George Willocks and 
Dr. John Johnstone covered 3,150.' Owing to the exis- 
tence of the Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery and other ma- 
terials relating to the Elizabethtown dispute, the exact fig- 
ures for this district are readily obtainable. The East 
Jersey Records, however, show that not only for the valley 
of the Raritan, but for the whole of the province, a period 
of comparatively large surveys begins in 1683.^ Most of 
the holders of extensive tracts were of course themselves 
proprietors, holders of at least fractions of interests. But 
patents for extensive tracts to outside investors are not 
infrequent.* A few rather large grants for headland are 
also to be found, while in certain cases the proprietors 
granted tracts of land as special rewards for services ren- 
dered. A gift of one thousand acres to Dockwra is the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 494. 

"^Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, appendix, schedule iii. 

^ East Jersey Records, liber A and B. 

*For examples, Ibid., liber A, pp. 04-107, 166, 167, etc. 



54 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

best example/ Patents for smaller tracts still appear, but 
many of these lie within the bounds of the original town- 
ships. 

These developments brought with them important con- 
sequences. Henceforth the landlioldings of East Jersey- 
could be classed into two general groups : the small hold- 
ing of the original settlers, lying chiefly within the towns 
and subject always to quit- rent, and the large tracts of the 
proprietors which, of course, were free from such payment. 
There was, of course, a continual tendency toward the sub- 
division of the latter, and purchasers from individual pro- 
prietors seem to have been subject to quit-rent to the pro- 
prietors from whom they purchased. But this process of 
subdivision was gradual. If we bear in mind the pecu- 
liar division of the lands of the province and recall the 
origin of the people into whose hands they came, several 
important developments in the history of East Jersey will 
become much more clear than would otherwise be possible. 

While adhering strictly to their right to quit-rent un- 
der the Concessions,' the Twenty-four seem to have made 
some effort to conciliate the inhabitants of their province, 
many of whom were implacably hostile to the Carterets.' 
In this effort they naturally failed as long as they were un- 
willing to remove the real bone of contention, the quit-rent. 
The proprietors themselves at length realized that though 
they might obtain temporary quiet by allowing the rents 
to run in arrears, no permanent settlement would be pos- 
sible while the rents remained. They therefore in 1697 
commissioned George Willocks as their agent to collect ar- 
rears and sell the rents. Willocks was to have in pay- 
ment five pounds of every one hundred he obtained. But 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 486. "-Ibid., p. 477. 

^Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 130, 138-9- 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 55 

he was not to sell any rents under the price of " Twenty 
years Purchase of the full Yearly Value of those Rents;" 
and he was not to execute any release of rents until he had 
made contracts for at least one hundred and thirty-three 
pounds sterling value of the said rents.' The mission of 
Willocks was a step in the right direction, yet it was pro- 
ductive of little good. The concession had been too long 
delayed, and under the encouragement of Basse, the pro- 
prietors' renegade governor, a direct attack upon the pro- 
prietary system was already being made. The terms of- 
fered by Willocks seem to have received little consider- 
ation on the part of the disgruntled element in the province 
and his presence as proprietary agent only made the coti- 
flict more bitter.- 

Before considering the developments which led to the 
" Revolution," as the temporary overthrow of the proprie- 
tary system was often called in East Jersey, we must pause 
for a moment to note one or two other features regarding 
the land operations of the proprietors. It is an interesting 
fact that until the accession of Basse the general assembly 
had made no serious effort to interfere with the land sys- 
tem. In 1682 it had enacted that all patents in the name 
of the lords proprietors and signed by the governor and the 
greater part of the council should be valid even though the 
names of the proprietors were not all certified particularly.' 
In 1686 an act regulating fees gave the surveyor general two 
shillings six pence for a survey of thirty acres; five shillings 
for surveys up to fifty acres ; six shillings from fifty to one hun- 
dred acres ; six shillings a hundred acres up to five hundred ; 
two shillings for each one hundred from five hundred to one 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 186. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 200-1, 210. 

' Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, p. 269. 



56 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

thousand acres, and for each one thousand acres in the 
same tract, twenty shillings, and for odd measure in pro- 
portion. He was to have two shillings for the return of 
each survey and twelve for a copy out of the surveyor's 
record/ A later act of 1692 declared valid all convey- 
ances of land made by attorneys of proprietors.^ All of 
these laws were readily approved. 

Even after the anti-proprietary movement had begun, 
it took the form rather of an attack against the entire pro- 
prietary authority than an effort to control the existing 
machinery of government. In 1698 an assembly under 
anti-proprietary influence passed an act declaring valid cer- 
tain land grants of Carteret's time which contained an error 
in legal phraseology.^ This measure was carried against 
bitter opposition by Willocks, who demanded that no such 
action should be taken without consulting the proprietors.* 
This was the only important law relating strictly to land 
carried against the proprietary interest, though in other 
ways, to be noticed later, the assembly sought to destroy 
proprietary influence. Another act of 1698 was ncA^er- 
theless important.^ This law enacted that the public re- 
cords should be kept at Perth Amboy and that the register 
should enter all public affairs, all grants and patents of 
land, and all deeds or conveyances, which deeds those con- 
cerned must record within six months if inhabiting within 
the province. Deeds were to be first acknowledged by the 
grantor or proved by one of the witnesses before the gov- 
ernor or one of the council, who was to endorse the fact 
upon the deed. Such deed was then to be good despite any 

* Learning and Spicer, o/>. ciL, p. 298. 
^/bid., p. 315. ^/btd., p. 362. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 200-1. 

*This was the interesting act "declaring what are the Rights and 
Priviledges of his Majesty's Subjects," etc. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF EAST JERSEY 57 

earlier conveyance not recorded.^ But nothing in the act 
was to prejudice any outside of East Jersey. In so far 
as the keeping of the records went, this act merely sanc- 
tioned earlier practice. 

Just before the end of the proprietary period the pro- 
prietors themselves took certain important steps. On 
February 21, 1698, fche council of proprietors ordered a new 
dividend in the province of five thousand acres to a pro- 
priety. Further, on December 2, 1702, an addition of two 
thousand five hundred acres was ordered. A general di- 
rection was then given to the surveyor general to survey to 
each proprietor his share without further particular order. 
This regulation virtually dissolved the council of pro- 
prietors, as the examination of claims to land was its chief 
function. But a former regulation was then renewed that 
no survey should be made to any whose title did not appear 
upon record with the proprietary register, who by means 
of this usually certified to the surveyor general the title 
of such as wished lands laid out." It was in confirmation 
of this order that the act of assembly of 1698 was ap- 
parently passed. 

A discussion of the further changes in the land system 
belongs under the royal period. So far, to 1703, the gen- 
eral conditions are reasonably plain. We must now turn 
our attention to the interesting and persistent efforts made 
during this period to overthrow the system of the pro- 
prietors. 

' Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 369. 
"^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 17, 



CHAPTER IV 
Land Troubles in East Jersey 

To students of political history the struggle between the 
proprietary and anti-proprietary parties in East Jersey has 
naturally furnished one of the chief threads of interest down 
to the establishment of the royal government in 1703. 
Certainly the rebellious proceedings beginning in 1670 and 
in 1698 furnish the most striking events in the history of 
the province during this period. The true causes of the 
disturbances have, indeed, been carefully explained by cer- 
tain authorities,^ though it must be admitted in a some- 
what partisan spirit. Yet, they are assuredly not gen- 
erally understood. It is usually stated that the rebellious 
elements, constituting probably a majority of the people of 
East Jersey, were actuated specifically by a wish to be rid 
of the quit-rent due to the proprietors under the Conces- 
sions, and that in a more general way they opposed the entire 
proprietary system and all the old-world ideas connected 
with it. As opposed to the proprietary title they are said 
to have advanced the plea of Indian right, namely, that in- 
asmuch as they had purchased their lands from the Indians, 
the settlers themselves became the rightful owners, and that 
all attempts of the proprietors to force further payments 
were unjust and illegal. " 

In this popular view there is undeniably much truth. 

' Especially Hatfield and Whitehead, 

'See, for example, Dally, Woodbridge and Vicinity (New Bruns- 
wick, 1873), p. 45- 
S8 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY ^g 

The opponents of the proprietors were at bottom actuated 
chiefly by the desire to escape from the hated quit-rent and 
by a general dislike for proprietary privileges, especially 
■when in the hands of persons like Carteret or the Twenty- 
four, who were not in close sympathy with the colonists 
or their ideals.^ It is also true that the plea of Indian right 
was advanced and doubtless was believed in by many who 
shared in the uprisings. Yet, though these things are 
true, they are by no means the whole truth, and the student 
who goes no deeper must fail to comprehend the anti-pro- 
prietary movements in their true light. 

The real issue, so far as it was specific in character, was 
as to the ownership of two large tracts of land in the pro- 
vince, embracing some of the most valuable territory and 
covering either wholly or in part five counties of the present 
state. These tracts are usually referred to by the some- 
what confusing names of the Monmouth Purchase and the 
Elizabethtown Purchase. They were purchased from the 
Indians, and occupied, at least in part, by settlers from 
Long Island before the control of Berkeley and Carteret 
over New Jersey was established, and indeed before the 
transfer of the province from James of York to Berkeley 
and Carteret was known in America.^ Both purchases 
had been made by permission of Col. Nicolls, at that time 
the governor of all the Duke's territories, and moreover 
were duly confirmed by him in proper legal form.^ Stated 
in their simplest form, the questions growing out of these 
purchases were: (i), whether Berkeley and Carteret ac- 
quired legal title to these tracts which had already been 

'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 113-4, I35, 180, etc. 
"^ New Jefsey Archives, vol. i, p. 183; Whitehead, East Jersey under 
the Proprietors , pp. 41-3. 
* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 15, 17, 43. 



6o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

conveyed away by the Duke's legal representative; and 
(2), whether, therefore, the charge of quit-rent or any 
other payment required by the proprietors within these 
tracts was valid/ Modern writers have spoken chiefly of 
the matter of quit-rent, but this was, after all, only a sub- 
ordinate issue growing out of the larger one as to the 
actual legal ownership of the soil. When we remember 
that the two tracts in question included a very large slice 
of the most valuable part of the province, the vital char- 
acter of the issue is apparent. 

The plea of Indian title alone was never seriously relied 
upon by the leaders of the anti-proprietary party. It was 
the grant or patent for the land given by Nicolls to which 
they pinned their faith. Since the days of Roger Williams 
the legal worthlessness of the claim from Indian purchase 
had become too well established in New England juris- 
prudence to allow them to commit such a legal error. In- 
deed the Elizabethtown men later complained bitterly 
that the proprietors were endeavoring to make them ap- 
pear to be claiming from Indian purchase alone.^ There 
is no doubt that many persons inhabiting districts outside 
of the Monmouth and Elizabethtown tracts made common 
cpuse with the settlers therein against the proprietors. The 
more ignorant among them perhaps believed that Indian 
right gave a valid title to all lands, though there is little con- 
temporary evidence to show that such was the case. The 
fact is that the question of the Elizabethtown purchase 
formed an issue which served to rally about it all in the 
province who disliked the proprietary control. 

Let us now examine a little more in detail both the legal 

^ These issues are clearly stated, for example, in the Petition to the 
King, drawn up by the peop)le of Elizabethtown apparently in 1696. 
New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 124. 

"^Answer to the Bill in Chancery. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY 6t 

principles and the facts involved in the purchases. In the first 
place nothing can be more clear than that the confirmation 
by Nicolls of the Elizabethtown purchase to Baker, Ogden, 
Bailey, and Watson and their associates, December i, 1664, 
and of the Monmouth purchase to William Goulding- and 
associates, April 8, 1665, was invalid. All the transactions 
involved had taken place after the lands in question had 
passed from the hands of James, and Nicolls could not 
legally dispose of them to outside parties. That the trans- 
fer to Berkeley and Carteret was unknown in America 
cannot affect the principle. The purchasers of the land 
who acted on the authority of Nicolls had, it is true, a clear 
case in equity for the recovery of damages against the Duke 
and his agent. But this fact in no way affected the in- 
validity of their claim to land-title. Both the Elizabeth- 
town and the Monmouth purchases were void by e\'ery prin- 
ciple of law known at the time.^ But though this con- 
clusion is unavoidable, it by no means follows that the 
claimants by the Nicolls grants acted in bad faith. There 
is no evidence to prove that they did not sincerely believe 
that their contentions were both legal and just.^ 

Although the questions regarding the two grants were 
ver>^ nearly similar, that of the ^Monmouth Patent did not 
give rise to such long-continued legal complications as the 
Elizabethtown Purchase. The Monmouth Tract embraced 
the lands between the Raritan and " Sandy Point," and 
reached back a considerable distance into the country. 
The purchasers were William Goulding, Samuel Spicer, 
Richard Gibbons. Richard Stout, James Grover, John 
Bown. John Tilton, Nathaniel Silvester, William Reape, 

'Whitehead, Easi Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 268-271; New 
Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 272; Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 27. 
'As charged in the Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, pp. 32, 43. 



62 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Walter Clark, Nicholas Davis, Obadiah Holmes, and their 
associates being- from Gravesend and vicinity on Long 
Island/ The purchase made from the Indians by the ori- 
ginal patentees appears to have been genuine,^ although as 
usual there was some misunderstanding with the natives 
later ; ^ and the land was occupied before the arrival of 
Philip Carteret.* In common with the other colonists the 
settlers did not take out patents for the lands which they 
had occupied and apportioned. But unlike the men of 
Elizabethtown, they did not, with some exceptions, 
take the oath of fidelity to Berkeley and Carteret. ° 
Moreover, they objected to and refused to recognize the 
governmental powers of the proprietors over their patent, 
unless the privileges granted to them by Colonel Nicolls 
were excepted. ° Governor Carteret took steps to enforce 
their submission,^ but before the matter could come to a de- 
finite issue, the 25th of March, 1670, the day upon which 
was due the first payment of the quit-rent, arrived. The 
demand for quit-rent, however, caused great disturbances 
throughout the province. There was a general refusal to 
pay the rent, and the proprietors' authority was successfully 
defied for about two years. ^ But in the disturbances the 
settlers of the Monmouth Patent took little part,*' and when 
at length the lords proprietors made known their inten- 
tion of enforcing their rights, they asked for a suspension 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 43. 

' Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, pp. 33-5. 

'Smith, New Jersey, p. 63 (note). 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 183. ^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 51. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey uuder the Proprietors, pp. 62-3. 
''New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 58-59. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors , pp. 64-71. 
"Ibid., p. 82 (note). 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY 



63 



of all steps against them until they could communicate di- 
rectly with Berkeley and Carteret. This they forthwith 
did, and an agreement was reached by which, with certain 
other privileges, they received a confirmation of the lands 
covered by the Monmouth Patent to dispose of as they saw 
fit. But the said lands were to be conveyed by individual 
grants subject to the terms of the Concessions, and all 
claims under the Nicolls Patent were to be given up.^ 
Thus the Monmouth controversy was apparently settled, 
and no more was heard of it for some time. The people of 
Middletown, however, as the outcome showed, were by no 
means satisfied. This town remained a center of dissatis- 
faction with the proprietary control, and claims for exemp- 
tion from quit-rent were later brought forward in spite of 
the agreement. 

The question of Elizabethtown was even more serious 
in its consequences, and hence we must give it more de- 
tailed consideration. It is however a peculiarly trying ques- 
tion for the student. A wealth of material indeed exists. 
Every scrap of available evidence was seized upon in the 
numerous suits growing out of the purchase, and the whole 
has been preserved in the Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery 
and the Answer to the Bill in Chancery, prepared probably 
in 1745 and 1757 respectively,* at the time of the celebrated 
suit in chancery between the proprietors of East Jersey 
and the associates of Elizabethtown. These statements 
were prepared by the most distinguished legal talent avail- 
able, — James Alexander for the proprietors, and William 
Livingston and William Smith, Jr., the historian, for the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 88; Whitehead, op.cit.,^. 71. The 
original patentees were granted 500 acres apiece. New Jersey Ar- 
chives, vol. i, p. 171. 

'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 369-371. 



64 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

townspeople/ Even for those to whom these rare works 
are not available, excellent secondary discussions of the 
case are to be found in the works of Whitehead, who favors 
the proprietors, and in Hatfield's History of Elizabeth, 
which is a plea for the associates. But in spite of all this 
material, the evidence which is really essential appears to 
have perished. Until the Town Book of Elizabethtown 
is recovered we cannot know what took place during- the 
earliest years of the settlement, and without such knowl- 
edge no final judgment of all the aspects of the case is 
possible. It was always claimed by the proprietors that 
the Town Book was deliberately concealed or destroyed 
by the associates." This charge, however, the associates 
resolutely denied, and tried to cast the blame upon their 
opponents.^ 

Of some things, however, we can be sure. The ori- 
ginal petition to Nicolls for permission to purchase lands 
across the bay was dated September 26, 1664, and signed 
by six settlers of Jamaica, Long Island: Bailey, Daniel 
Denton, Benedyck, Foster, Nathaniel Denton, and Watson.* 
Nicolls' consent was given on September 30, and on Octo- 
ber 28, John Bailey, Daniel Denton, and Luke Watson 
entered into an indenture with three Indian sachems for 
" One parcel of Land bounded on the South By a River 
commonly called The Raritan River And on the East by 
the River which Parts Staten Island and the Main and To 
Run Northward up after cull Bay Till we come at the first 
River which setts westward out of the said Bay aforesaid 
and To Run west Into the Country Twice the Length as 

'Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 114. 

* Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 32. 
' Hatfield, op. cit., p. 309. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 14. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY 65 

it Is Broad from the North to The South of the afore- 
mentioned Bounds." Bailey, Denton and Watson made 
the purchase on behalf of themselves, " Their Associates, 
their heirs and Executors." ^ On December 2, Colonel 
Nicolls confimied the ownership of the tract to Capt. John 
Bailey and Luke Watson and their associates. They were 
to hold the land, " Rendering and paying- yearly unto his 
Royal Highness, The Duke of Yorke, or his assigns, a cer- 
tain Rente according To the Customary Rate of ye Coun- 
try for New Plantations." Further liberty wa& also 
given to purchase land as far as Snake Hill." 

In these transactions there were certain minor defects. 
The lands in question were already covered by an old 
Dutch purchase of Augustine Hermans. But this fact 
was overlooked. It was also peculiar that only one of the 
chiefs mentioned on the face of the indenture signed that 
document, while an unmentioned sachem fixed his mark.^ 
It likewise appears plain that though the remuneration was 
actually paid to the Indians after some delay, they gave 
up their control of only a portion of the territory, namely 
as far as the famous Minnisinck Path, the name given to 
an important Indian trail crossing the Raritan at Kent's 
Neck, and leading to the Rahway River which it followed. 
West of this trail the settlers were obliged to make new 
purchases. But these defects were hardly vital. ^ 

The boundaries of the purchase seem clearly stated in 
Nicolls' patent, and yet it was over these boundaries that 
a bitter controversy was raised. The patent said that the 
land should be bounded by Raritan River and Staten 
Island Sound, and run n(Mthward "up After Cull, (i. e. 
Newark), Baye till you come to the first river which 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. I5- "^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 17. 

^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 26. ^ Ibid., p. 52. 



66 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

sets westwards out of the said Bay." It was to ex- 
tend into the country "' twice the leng^th of the breadth 
thereof from the north to the south." ^ The conflict was 
as to what was meant by the " first river which sets 
westward out of the said Bay." It was the claim of the 
Elizabethtown men that the Passaic River was designated,^ 
but the proprietors later insisted that the little stream 
known as Bound Creek because it long formed the line 
between Elizabethtown and Newark, was intended.^ The 
debatable land included several thousand acres, and Newark 
itself. It was therefore a very valuable stake. Some ex- 
tremists of EHzabethtown appear later to have laid claim 
to all the land as far as Snake Hill, taking advantage of 
Nicoll's permission to purchase to that point.* But no 
serious effort was made to maintain this untenable position. 
The Bill in Chancery states that the entire territory from 
the Raritan to the Passaic contained above 400,000 acres 
of the best land in the province.'"' 

Another doubtful point is as to the associates of the 
purchasers. These associates are mentioned in both 
the Indian purchase and Nicolls' confirmatory grant, 
though not in a definite way. Taking this into 
consideration, as well as the tradition to the effect that 
a society of associates existed previous to the settlement " 
and the fact that the people of New England almost in- 
variably set about making new settlements in companies 
or congregations, we must conclude that Bailey, Denton, 
and Watson were acting on behalf of a number of pro- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 18. 

'Hatfield, op. cit., p. 119. 

^ Elizabethtown Billin Chancery, pp. 62-3. 

*Ibid., p. 63. ^Ibid., p. 23. 

•Murray, Notes on Elizabethtown (Elizabethtown, 1844), pp.' 19-20. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY 67 

spective settlers.^ But to what extent they were organized, 
and whether they were in any legal sense shareholders in the 
enterprise, are matters of doubt. The proprietary conten- 
tion was always that Bailey, Denton, and Watson were 
alone concerned in the purchase, and that the celebrated 
company of eighty associates was not formed until after 
the arrival of Philip Carteret and the foundation of the new 
town.^ As partial proof they referred to a copy of a min- 
ute from the lost Elizabothtown Book, which states that at 
a " Meeting Court " held February 19, 1665-6, it was 
agreed by the freeholders and inhabitants, by the approval 
of Governor Carteret, that the town should consist for the 
present of four-score families, and that an addition of twenty 
more might be made later if desirable. This the Bill in 
Chancery claims to be proof that the eighty associates were 
associates only in founding Elizabeth, and not in the 
Nicolls grant. ^ Such evidence, however, is hardly very 
strong, while the inherent probability that the purchase was 
co-operative is great. 

The early relations between Philip Carteret and the set- 
tlers present several points of doubt. It has been asserted 
that the associates had already established a numerous set- 
tlement upon their purchase before Carteret arrived,* but 
the only contemporary evidence, though it is of an unsatis- 
factory character, states that only four families were in- 
habitating there.'' In any case, no disagreement between 
the new governor and the planters regarding the land or 
Carteret's pretensions to govern seems to have occurred. 

' A little positive evidence seems to be offered in New Jersey Ar- 
chives, vol. i, p. 504. 
"^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 29. ^Ibid., pp. 32-3. 

•Hatfield, op. cit., p. 42. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 183. 



68 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Carteret and his company were welcomed and joined in 
founding- the town to which Carteret gave the name. Car- 
teret, moreover, soon after obtained a share in the enter- 
prise by purchasing the interest of John Bailey,^ though 
there was dispute later as to whether this amounted to a third 
interest in the entire Indian purchase or merely to one of the 
eighty shares in the cooperative undertaking. Vauquillin, 
also, the French surveyor, who arrived with Carteret, was 
admitted as an associate.^ 

Since no record exists of any agreement between Car- 
teret and the associates, great interest attaches to such acts 
on 'their part as seem to indicaite their understanding of the 
situation. A careful study of what occurred certainly seems 
to indicate that the settlement was made under the Con- 
cessions, rather than in virtue of the Nicolls grant, and 
mutual agreement. On February 19, 1665, sixty-five male 
inhabitants of Elizabethtown took the oath of fidelity to 
Berkeley and Carteret, thus, it would seem, expressly recog- . 
nizing their claims.^ Further, in December, 1666, Carteret, 
Ogden, and Watson sold to Daniel Pierce and his associates 
a large share of the Elizabethtown tract for the settlement 
of Woodbridge and Piscataway. There was no recognition 
that any except the three patentees were concerned in the 
bargain.* Further, as mentioned in the preceding chapter 
Carteret commissioned John Brackett to lay out the lands 
of the settlers and set the bounds of the township, while 
on two occasions the governor and council forbade the cut- 
ting of timber within Elizabethtown." The settlement of 
Newark, too, which fell within the bounds of the Elizabeth- 

* Elizabethtown Bill in Chajtcery, p. 29; Hatfield, op. cit., p. 51. 

"Hatfield, op. cit., p. 97. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 49. 

'■Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 29. ^ Ibid., p. 34. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY 



69 



town purchase, as later claimed by the associates, was ar- 
ranged by Carteret apparently without opposition.^ There 
is evidence to show, however, that the bounds between 
Newark and Ehzabethtown were arranged by mutual agree- 
ment between the two towns.' 

In contradiction to these acts which show clearly a recog- 
nition of Carteret's power, the upholders of the associates 
have been able to say merely that the taking of the oaths 
was the result of fear, and that the other steps were taken 
with the consent of the town.^ But there is nothing to show 
(that such was the case. It is, of course, true that no in- 
habitants of Ehzabethtown took out patents, but neither 
did the people of the other towns, and Carteret, so far as we 
know, made no effort to enforce the patenting of lands until 
1670. 

The first demand for quit-rent, however, changed the en- 
tire situation. There was a general refusal by the associ- 
ates of Ehzabethtown either to pay the rent or to take out 
patents, and this refusal was soon accompanied by riotous 
demonstrations against the proprietors' authority. Philip 
Carteret had brought with him eighteen male servants, sev- 
eral of whom had by this time served their terms. Upon 
one. Claude Valot. the governor in February, 1669-70, be- 
stowed a third lot right in the town which he had acquired 
by purchase, and also declared Valot to be " a true 
Denizen " of the province.' This act had apparently caused 
dissastif action, for when, in the spring of 1671, Carteret, 
■without consulting the town, made a small grant of land to 
another former servant, Richard Michell, it was agreed by 
the associates, in a meeting of June 19th, that Michell should 

' Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 50, 51, 288-93. 
' Town Records of Newark, p. 10. "Hatfield, op. cit., p. 118. 

* Hatfield, op. cit., p. 133. 



70 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



not have the land, and that his fence should be pulled down 
on the next morning. Accordingly, upon the next day, the 
townspeople, led by some of the most prominent men, as 
William Meaker, John Ogden, Jr., Jeffry Jones, and Luke 
Watson, assembled, pulled down Michell's fence, and de- 
stroyed his garden.^ 

This was the beginning of open conflict between the peo- 
ple of Elizabethtown and the governor. Meaker, Jones, 
Watson and their confederates, were tried by a special court 
of oyer and terminer, with a jury drawn from Woodbridge 
and Bergen, and fined, but defied the authority of the 
court.^ In this conflict the Elizabethtown men had the 
support of most of the inhabitants of the other towns, al- 
though their people had no reasonable grounds whatsoever 
for refusal to obey the Concessions. The people of Newark 
had offered payment of the quit-rents in wheat instead of 
lawful money as the Concessions required.^ But, when the 
offer was not accepted, they cooperated with the anti-pro- 
prietary faction. Bergen also refused the rents, while dele- 
gates from even Woodbridge and Piscataway attended the 
unauthorized assemblies of 1672.'* Cohesion was given 
■to the opposition to the governor by the appearance upon 
the scene of Capt. James Carteret, a son of Sir George, 
who was then on his way to Carolina, of which he had been 
appointed a "landgrave." James Carteret seized the op- 
portunity to gain power at the expense of his kinsman, 
readily allowing himself to be made the nominal leader of 
the malcontents. ° 

•Hatfield, op. cit., p. 137; New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 84-86. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 80-87. 
^Town Records of Newark, p. 30. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 66. 
''Ibid., p. 67. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY yi 

Against this formidable uprising Philip Carteret strug- 
gled in vain until, at length convinced of his helplessness, he 
commissioned Capt. John Berry as his deputy, and left 
East Jersey for England to lay the entire case before 
Berkeley and Carteret in person/ The result was decisive. 
King Charles himself was induced to order a letter written 
to Berry, recognizing his authority and authorizing him to 
command obedience," while James of York also wrote to 
Governor Lovelace, of New York, declaring the Nicolls 
grants void and instructing him to give information of its 
inxalidi'ty to the " contentious persons " who were opposing 
Berkeley and Carteret.' The lords proprietors them- 
selves issued a proclamation directly to the planters of East 
Jersey,^ while in the Declaration of the True Intent of the 
Concessions they changed the provisions of the Concessions, 
as has been previously pointed out, in such a way as to cur- 
tail the power of the assembly to do mischief. It was or- 
dered that the arrears of the quit-rents of Elizabethtown, 
Newark, Piscataway, and the two towns of the Navesinks, 
should be paid in three years from 1673.'^ On the other 
hand, the upholders of Berkeley and Carteret were re- 
warded, the town of Woodbridge, which had been in the 
main loyal, receiving a remission of one-'third its quit-rent 
for seven years to come.* 

Before this formidable show of authority the opposition 
to the proprietors naturally gave way. Berry promptly 
published the document sent him, and set a time limit for the 
submission of the malcontents.'' Some of those who had 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 69; New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 91, 94- 

* New Jersey Archives , vol. i, p. 107. 

^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 97. ^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 101. 

''Ibid., vol. i, p. 106. ^Ibid., vol. i, p. 104. 

'Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 71. 



y2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

borne a leading share in the rebellion were punished. Wil- 
liam Meaker was compelled to forfeit his estate to William 
Pardon, one of Carteret's council, who had been arrested 
and forced to flee by /the insurrectionists, while a number of 
others were fined ten pounds/ But before the proprietary 
authority had been completely restored, the chain of events 
was suddenly interrupted by the Dutch reconquest of New 
Netherland." This event has an interesting connection with 
the Elizabethtown dispute. 

James Carteret had left East Jersey for Carolina in a 
sloop commanded by one Samuel Davis. With him was 
Samuel Hopkins, a settler of Elizabethtown, who had been 
identified with the anti-proprieitary faction. The sloop, 
however, fell in with the Dutch squadron of Evertsen and 
Biinckes, and was captured. Davis was promised the res- 
toration of his vessel if he would give information regard- 
ing the defenses of New York, but he, nevertheless, stated 
untruthfully that the province was well defended. There- 
upon Hopkins declared that Davis had replied falsely, and 
revealed the real weakness of the colony. This incident un- 
doubtedly encouraged the Dutch in their venture. Car- 
teret was put ashore in Virginia, but Hopkins was brought 
north with the fleet, and after the conquest reappeared in 
Elizabethtown.^ 

During the brief period of Dutch rule the advantage lay 
with the associates and their supporters, for not only were 
further coercive measures prevented, but the local govern- 
ments organized on the Dutch plan, which took the place 
of the provincial government, were chiefly in their hands, 
John Ogden, Sr., Samuel Hopkins and Jacob Melyn being 
Schepens of " Elisabets Towne." * The bitterness evi- 

' Hatfield, op. cit., p. 151. '' Whitehead, op. cit., p. 73. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 121, 152. ''Ibid., vol. i, p. 128. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY 73 

dently continued, however. By an appeal to the Council 
of New Netherland, Capt. Berry and Sandford seem to 
have foiled an attempt by Hopkins to get possession of the 
records of the late proprietary province.^ On the other 
hand, Vauquillin, Carteret's surveyor general, was ban- 
ished for endeavoring to remove goods from Philip Car- 
teret's house and for making threats.^ 

The re-establishment of English rule after the Treaty of 
Westminster brought with it the temporary downfall of the 
anti-proprietary party. Legally it would seem that the 
Dutch conquest, the recession, and the eventual reconvey- 
ance of the entire province from the Duke of York to 
Carteret, must effectually cut off any validity which the 
claim from the Nicolls grant might have. The return of 
Governor Carteret, anned with ample power from the pro- 
prietors, brought the same result practically. His instruc- 
tions commanded him not only to insist upon the immedi- 
ate payment of the quit-rent, but also to dispose of all lands 
lying within the Elizabethtown tract which were not pa- 
tented within a year. In case of refusal of the rent the 
constable of the town was to seize the goods of the party to 
the amount required. The only concession made was 
that, at the request of the governor and council, the rent 
might be paid in current money of the province instead of 
lawful English money. ^ The people of Elizabethtown made 
a feeble effort to compromise, offering, March 11, 1674-5, 
to pay twenty pounds annually in consideration of a town- 
ship eight miles square. They declared that they had been 
deceived in regard to the badness of the soil, half or more 
"being but waste land." But the governor and council 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 131. 

^Ibid., vol. i, p. 133. ^Ibid., vol. i, p. 170. 



74 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



replied that no alteration from the requirements of the 
Concessions could be considered.^ 

The opposition then collapsed, and the patenting of land 
began. Among those who took out warrants for surveys are 
to be found every one of the original eighty Elizabethtown 
associates or their heirs or assigns, with the single exception 
of Benjamin Homan. The great majority also obtained sur- 
veys and patents. As Homan died a bachelor, his claim does 
not seem to have been continued.^ The lands in Newark 
and Piscataway were also surveyed and patented at about 
the same period. Thus the Concessions were in efifect ful- 
filled. It must be admitted, however, that considerable 
looseness in meeting their requirements is to be seen. Pa- 
tents were never taken out on some of the surveys, nor do 
those actually recorded correspond exactly in all cases with 
the warrants.' The payment of quit-rents probably always 
ran behind. But the great point had been gained for the 
proprietors. These things were matters of carelessness or 
stealth, not of rebellious opposition. 

A long period of quiet, so far as the land controversy is 
concerned, followed the submission to Carteret. A volun- 
tary contribution was made by Elizabethtown and Newark 
to compensate William Meaker for the loss of his property,* 
but there was no effort at open opposition during Carteret's 
proprietorship. Indeed, the people of East Jersey were in- 
clined to support their government against the claims of 
Andros to control over New Jersey. Under the circum- 
stances this is rather remarkable.^ It must not be under- 
stood, however, that the old claims were forgotten or that 

' Hatfield, op. cit., p. i8i; Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, pp. 42-3. 
''Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, 43, appendix, schedule viii. 
»Hatdelfi,o/>. cit., p. 184. Wbid., p. 186. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 299, 311, 313, etc. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY 



75 



the people of Elizabethtown willingly acquiesced in the tri- 
umph of the lord proprietor. 

The Twenty-four proprietors used characteristic caution 
in dealing with the question of quit-rents and counter land 
claims. Not only did Governor Rudyard bring a con- 
ciliatory letter to the planters,^ but the offer of the pro- 
prietors, in their " Brief Account," to sell out all the rents 
for fifty shillings on twenty-five acres, shows that they un- 
derstood this matter to be a source of difficulty and desired 
to be rid of it. In May, 1683, Rudyard, in council, re- 
ceived committees from the inhabitants of the Monmouth 
Patent and from Elizabethtown with a view to adjusting 
difficulties. The committee from the " Neversinks " con- 
sisted of John Bowne, Richard Hartshorne, and Joseph 
Parker. They demanded, however, that " the patentees " 
should have their lands free, and afterward admitted that 
ithey were instructed to make no other agreement tlian one 
for payment of rent at half a bushel of wheat for one hun- 
dred acres. As these terms were not accepted by the gov- 
ernor and council, the conference ended unsatisfactorily.^ 
Anti-proprietary feeling in Middletown not only continued, 
but developed, and it seems probable that no quit-rent what- 
soever was paid. The efforts to arrive at any understand- 
ing with Elizabethtown were equally fruitless.^ But the 
Twenty-four continued to make feeble efforts to adjust the 
question of rents. Gawen Lawrie was instructed to see if 
those planters who had large grants, which had been unused, 
and who were in arrears, would not be willing to give up 
fractions of their land in order to get rid of the rent per- 
manently.* On the other hand, the new proprietors were 

' Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 127. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 72-4- ^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 74. 

* Ibid., vol. i, p. 429. 



76 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

firm enough in dieir continual refusal to recognize the 
Nicolls grants, or to enter into any agreement with the 
claimants under them. Several references in the docu- 
ments of the proprietors show clearly that the planters of 
Elizabethtown still voiced their old claims, and that they 
were regarded with apprehension.^ No new incident in the 
controversy occurred for some time, however, except that, 
in 1684, Capt. John Barker is accused of having tried to 
deceive Governor Lawrie as to the extent of the original 
Elizabethtown purchase. He is said to have bribed the 
Indians to indicate a point well beyond the Minnisinck path 
as the bound of the tract bought, but to have been discov- 
ered and to have confessed his deceit" 

During this period of quiet many persons settled within 
the limits of the Elizabethtown tract and obtained lands 
there who were in no way connected with the original as- 
sociates.^ Many large proprietary surveys, as has already 
been indicated, also fell within the limits of the disputed 
territory. The Bill in Chancery gives sixty-two of these 
between 1682 and 1703.^ 

But in spite of the further concession of the proprietors, 
doubtless due to the continued difficulty of collection, that 
the quit-rents might be paid in the products of the country,* 
the old conflict was renewed. This came about as the re- 
sult of the case of Jones vs. Fullerton. In 1693 Jefifry 
Jones, one of the original eighty associates, and a man who 
had taken an active part in the first riot, ejected James 
Fullerton, holder of a proprietary interest, from land oc- 
cupied by him on Cedar Brook. The proprietors, in the 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 429, 477. 
"^Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 44. 
^ Ibid., appendix, schedule iii. 
* New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 85. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY yy 

name of Fullerton, therefore broug-ht an ejectment suit 
against Jones, the first of a long series of similar leg'al con- 
flicts. The case was tried in Alay, 1695, in the Court of 
Common Pleas at Perth Amboy, and judgment was given 
for Fullerton.^ Jeffry Jones therefore appealed the case to 
the King in Council, and journeyed to England to plead in- 
person. In the rehearing of the case, in February, 1696-7, 
he had the advantage of the services of William Nicoll, 
agent of New York, as counsel." The council of proprie- 
tors of Fast Jersey, on their part, dispatched Thomas Gor- 
don to England as their agent."'' But the result of the hear- 
ing was a reversal of the former decision and the triumph 
of Jones and the associates. The record of this case does 
not seem to have been preserved, for while the result is ad- 
mitted, the parties later differed diametrically as to the rea- 
sons for the reversal of judgment. Nicoll declared under 
oath that the sole question at issue was the validity of the 
Nicolls grant, ^ but the proprietors asserted that the decision 
was changed because of error in the proceedings of the pro- 
vincial court. ° 

Be this as it may, the result was far-reaching. The Eliz- 
abethtown associates at once addressed a petition to the 
King praying for further relief from the proprietors, declar- 
ing that they now had no legal government whatsoever, and 
asking to be attached to the royal province of New York." 
The petition was. of course, merely an indication of an ag- 
gressive revival of the anti-proprietary movement. It was 
doubtless because of these signs of reviving discontent that 
the proprietors determined to dispose of their troublesome 

' Hatfield, op. cit., p. 242; Answer to Bill in Chancery, pp. 30-1. 

"^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 44. 

^ Nezu Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 124. 

* Hatfield, op. cit., p. 241; Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 44. 

'Hatfield, op. cit., p. 242. ^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 106. 



78- THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

quit-rents altogether, and dispatched Willocks to East Jersey 
as their agent for the sale of them. 

But other circumstances in the province as well aided in 
encouraging further agitation. In 1697, as will be ex- 
plained more fully later, the proprietors deemed it neces- 
sary to remove Andrew Hamilton, who had given satisfac- 
tion as governor, and to appoint in his place the clever, 
but unreliable, Jeremiah Basse. Basse's commission, how- 
ever, was not signed by the requisite sixteen proprietors, 
nor did he have the express approval of the King, 
which was now required by act of Parliament for all 
governors of plantations. For these reasons his authority 
in the Jerseys was questioned by many.^ This was a very 
unfortunate situation, indeed, for, as things stood, only the 
greatest wisdom and firmness could avert dangerous dis- 
order. But Basse, to secure his position, adopted deliber- 
ately the policy of alliance with the enemies of the pro- 
prietary order. In direct opposition to his instructions, he 
signed a bill sent up by the assembly which was inimical to 
the interests of the proprietors. He quarreled with Wil- 
locks, the agent for the sale of quit-rents, and abetted his 
expulsion from the assembly to which he had been chosen.* 
He also made every effort to discredit the Scotch proprie- 
tors by endeavoring to implicate them with the smugglers 
and pirates who frequented the coast. ^ As a result he was 
denounced and defied by the more vigorous among the pro- 
prietary adherents, and a regular insurrection headed by 
Morris and Willocks was narrowly averted.* 

Such encouragement naturally gave the anti-proprietary 
party every opportunity for development. And when, in 

• Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 194-8. 

"^ Ibid., pp. 19Q-202. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 288; Whitehead, op. cit., p. 208. 

♦Whitehead, op. cit., pp. 210-11. 



LAND TROUBLES IN EAST JERSEY 



79 



1699, Hamilton was at length restored, he found his au- 
thority almost void.^ His efforts to enforce the proprie- 
tary laws gave rise at once to disorders far more dangerous 
than those of 1670-3. Proprietary courts at Elizabeth- 
town, Newark, Piscataway, and Middletown were assaulted 
and broken up, amidst scenes of violence and confusion. 
Proprietary officers were beaten and insulted, persons ar- 
rested for disorder were rescued from prison, and when 
Flamilton raised a force to maintain his authority, he was 
met, in Monmouth County, by a larger force and com- 
pelled to retire.- Throughout the insurgents evidently acted 
more or less in concert, on several occasions appearing in 
military array, with drums and colors. The men of Eliza- 
bethtow-n and Middletown naturally took a leading part in 
these disturbances. Proprietary authority came virtually to 
an end in East Jersey, and the efforts of the proprietors to 
recover their control were to an extent nullified by the dis- 
creditable feud between Dockwra and his associates.^ 

It is very evident that " the Revolution," as the over- 
throw of proprietary authority in East Jersey was called, 
was to a considerable degree the immediate result of poli- 
tical causes. These, however, as can be seen, were closely 
interwoven with the land controversy. The Elizabethtown 
claimants at once took advantage of the downfall of their 
opponents. In the fall of 1699, it was voted in town meet- 
ing to proceed to the apportionment of the lands granted 
by Nicolls which had not yet been divided. Accordingly, 
John Harriman, Jr., t'he eldest son of the minister, was 
elected surveyor for this purpose, and Jonathan Ogden, 
Benjamin Lynn, John Clarke, Samuel Carter and Cornelius 
Hatfield were chosen assistants. They began their work 

'Whitehead, op. cit., pp. 213-218. 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 313, 315, 333, 362. 

'Whitehead, op. cit., pp. 215-218. 



8o THE PROl/INCE OF NEW JERSEY 

on December 26, 1699, and proceeded to survey and divide 
into lots about 17,000 acres, extending from the New^ark 
line on the north to the Woodbridge line on the south, v^^ith 
entire disregard to proprietary surveys for the same ground. 
Their survey, of course, covered land beyond the Minnisinck 
path, but they did not appropriate Newark lands. The land 
was divided into 171 lots, mositly forty by twenty-six chains, 
which were duly distributed among the associates, and 
most of which were actually occupied.^ 

This division was known as the Clinker Lot Division, and 
those holding by it the Clinker Lot Right men.^ The terms 
were la/ter rejected by t'he associates as unwarranted nick- 
names,^ but, as any unworthy significance in the names has 
long passed away, they may be conveniently used by the 
student. It was charged by the proprietors that the Clinker 
Lot Division was made secretly, and by only a part of the 
people of Elizabethtown, but the action was certainly open 
and approved by the town meeting.* It is very evident 
that many, at least, of the new comers to ithe town made 
common cause with the original associates and their heirs. 

The surrender of the governmental authority of the pro- 
vince to the Crown came chiefly as a result of the utter 
inabihty of the proprietors to cope with the disorders. 
When they could not prevent their own lands from being 
given away by the wholesale, substitution of a stronger 
power was their only salvation. But the royal govern- 
ment thus had to face a situation of peculiar difficulty. The 
proprietors and their opponents, now embittered by three 
decades of contention, each looked to the new authority lor 
support. Only extraordinary wisdom could avoid further 
disaster to the province. 

'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 248; Elizabethtown Bill in Chan- 
cery, p. 47. 

' Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 47. ^ Anszuer to Bill in Chancery. 
* Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 47; Hatfield, op. cit., p. 248. 



CHAPTER V 

Political Conditions in East Jersey Under the 
Proprietors 

The brief examination of the land system of East Jersey 
will enable us to understand much more clearly the political 
conditions of the proprietary province. The proprietors 
of the American colonies in addition to being landlords, 
were, of course. " vice-kings " possessing the power to in- 
stitute and maintain government over their respective terri- 
tories. From the beginning, however, there was uncer- 
tainty as to whether Berkeley and Carteret were proprietors 
in this double sense. To the modern student it must be 
clear that the deeds of lease and release from the Duke of 
York did not legally convey the power of jurisdiction over 
the lands given. But Berkeley and Carteret certainly be- 
lieved that they were fully entitled to set up a government 
over New Jersey. The result was a serious controversy 
between James and the two noblemen and their assigns. 
This dispute, however, can best be considered in a separate 
chapter. We need only say here that during most of the 
period the proprietors of New Jersey maintained an inde- 
pendent government, and that in the end James surrendered 
his claims. 

Directly after the grant of 1664 Berkeley and Carteret, 
following the usual proprietary practice, issued their Con- 
cessions.^ which, in addition to establishing the land system 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 28. 

81 



82 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

of their province, set forth its form of government and 
guaranteed certain private rights to settlers. The hberality 
of the poh'tical provisions has often been praised ; ^ and 
they do clearly show that Berkeley and Carteret w^ere to a 
large degree free from the fantastic and mediaeval notions 
of lordship which afflicted some proprietors. They were 
not indeed theorists on the subject of government, and 
their object was simply to attract settlers. The Conces- 
sions were, however, merely a copy of a similar instrument 
issued shortly before by the proprietors of the Carolinas 
for their projected settlement at Cape Fear.^ The merit 
of Berkeley and Carteret lies simply in the fact that they 
adopted and retained the Concessions. 

The government of New Jersey was to consist of a gov- 
ernor and council of not less than six nor more than twelve 
persons chosen by him, and of an assembly of twelve rep- 
resentatives chosen by the freemen of the province. All 
who were or should become subjects of the King of Eng- 
land and swear or subscribe fidelity to the lords proprietors 
were to be freemen. The general assembly was to ap- 
point its own times of meeting and adjournment and to fix 
its own quorum. It was to enact all laws for the welfare 
of the province, provided that they were within reason and 
as near as might be agreeable to the laws of England. 
Such laws were to remain in force one year, unless mean- 
while confirmed by the lords proprietors. The general 
assembly was further to constitute courts, to raise taxes, to 
erect manors, constitute ports and harbors, and divide the 
province into parishes and districts, to provide for the de- 
fence of New Jersey, and to make regulations for the 
naturalization of foreigners. By a special clause it was 

' Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors , p. 37- 
* Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. i, p. 79. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN EAST JERSEY 83 

declared that no persons should be interfered with in mat- 
ters of conscience or religion, provided they did not disturb 
the peace, and as a special guarantee of such liberty the gen- 
eral assembly was to appoint as many ministers as they saw 
fit and to provide for their maintenance. But liberty was 
reserved for any one to maintain other ministers if he so 
desired. 

The lords proprietors dispatched as their governor 
Philip Carteret,^ a distant relative of. Sir George, and at the 
time a young man of only twenty-six. In his hands was 
therefore placed the actual carrying-out of the Conces- 
sions. Of his previous career and, indeed, of his character 
outside of his official acts, little is known. But he certainly 
showed both firmness and caution as governor, and al- 
though his administration was a disturbed one, the cause 
lay in conditions beyond his control." In his council, how- 
ever, the leading influence certainly seems to have been held 
by James Bollen and Vauquillin, both officers of the pro- 
prietors, William Pardon, who seems to have accompanied 
Carteret from England, and Capt. John Berry, one of the 
planters of New Barbadoes. Among the members were 
Samuel Edsall, Capt. Nicholas Verlett, William Sandford, 
and Lawrence Andriesse, of Bergen, John Pike and John 
Bishop, of Woodbridge.^ But the New England element 
in Elizabethtovi-n and Newark was represented only for a 
short time by Robert Bond. 

There is no doubt that the liberality and comparatively 
democratic spirit of the Concessions had much to do with 
the rapid settlement of East Jersey, and especially with the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 20. 
'Whitehead, op. cit., pp. 106-108. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 97; Learning and Spicer, Grants and 
Concessions, p. 77. 



84 'i'tlE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

willingness of the New Englanders to venture there. The 
institution of vigorous town governments in the sev- 
eral settlements, however, naturally made the provincial au- 
thority somewhat less important, and Carteret did not deem 
it necessary to call a meeting of the assembly till 1668. 
This first representative body of New Jersey met at Eliza- 
bethtown, and its members were chosen in true New 
England fashion, two from each town.^ Its chief work 
was the passing of a bill of " pains and penalties," which 
enforced many of the provisions of the Levitical Law, thus 
showing the survival in New Jersey of the spirit of the 
New Haven of Davenport and Eaton. It also laid the 
foundation of a system of provincial taxation by levying 
five pounds upon each town for the expenses of the as- 
sembly." In November of the same year a second session 
was held,^ but it was notable only for the beginning of 
that difference of opinion between the governor and coun- 
cil on the one hand, and the elected representatives on the 
other, which was so characteristic of all colonial legislative 
procedure. The point of difference seems to have been as 
to whether the assembly should sit with the council, as the 
representatives demanded, or separately, as was required by 
Carteret.'* As a result the body adjourned on the fourth 
day without having accomplished much of importance. 

Meanwhile the quarrel with the towns of the Monmouth 
Patent had begvm. The Nicolls grant had given the set- 
tlers of Middletown and Shrewsbury the power to make 
such rules and regulations for their own government as 
they might deem necessary.^ Accordingly, a meeting or 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 56. 

* Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 77. ^ Ibid., p. 85. 

* Whitehead, op. cit., p. 204, note j. 
''New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 45-46. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN EAST JERSEY 85 

assembly for this purpose had been held at Portland Point 
in June, 1667. Moreover, the people of Middletown and 
Shrewsbury refused to allow the laws of the first provincial 
assembly to be published or enforced within their limits, but 
in taking this attitude they relied upon the claim that their 
representatives had not been legally elected. They pro- 
fessed their willingness to choose new delegates, but required 
that there should be a proviso in their oaths expressly re- 
cognizing the privileges granted to them by Nicolls.^ 

As the representatives of Middletown and Shrewsbury 
would not take the oaths without the proviso, they were 
excluded from the second session of the assembly.^ The 
assembly also appointed commissioners to visit the refrac- 
tory towns to collect their share of the rates that had been 
levied, and to learn their exact position on the questions at 
issue. ■'' But while these commissioners were not met by 
violence, they received no recog-nition from the Monmouth 
settlers. The latter at the same time issued an address 
declaring that they would rely upon their grant from Nicolls 
by which they were to be exempt from all payments for 
seven years. At the same time, since New Jersey had been 
assigned to Berkeley and Carteret, they were willing to be 
responsible to them " in all such acknowledgements as others 
his Majestie's subjects doe in the government of New Yorke 
to his Royal Highness." * For adopting this position the 
people of Middletown and Shrewsbury were by the general 
assembly of 1671 declared guilty of contempt of the lawful 
authorities of the province.^ 

Before Governor Carteret was able to bring the Mon- 

' Town Book of Middletown, p. 3. 

'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 85. ^ Ibid., p. 89. 

* Town Book of Middletowti, p. 7. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 63. 



86 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

mouth people to terms, his own authority was practically 
nullified by the anti-quitrent disturbances of 1670. As a 
means of coping with the opposition, the governor author- 
ized the courts of Woodbridge and Bergen, the only two in 
the colony, to try all cases brought before them, even when 
the parties came from outside their jurisdiction/ But this 
and all similar steps were alike futile. The power of the 
provincial government could no longer be enforced. 

During the period of disorder and confusion several 
meetings of bodies claiming to be assemblies were held. 
There was an assembly in 1671, and in March, 1672, rep- 
resentatives from all the towns except Middletown and 
Shrewsbury assembled, but Carteret and the council would 
not recognize the meeting as a lawful one, and all its re- 
cords were suppressed by William Pardon, assistant secre- 
tary of the council, who seems to have had charge of them.'' 
Not to be thus foiled, however, delegates from the towns 
met again without either the knowledge or consent of the 
governor, and took the extreme step of electing Capt. 
James Carteret " President of the Country." * They based 
the right to do this upon a clause in the Concessions which, 
in the absence of the governor or his deputy, authorized 
the general assembly to elect a president.* A chairman 
was, of course, all that was intended, but the provision was 
interpreted to allow the assembly to create a new and rival 
executive when the governor regularly commissioned by the 
lords proprietors was actually within the province. 

It is interesting to notice that, although the disaffected 
parties were in rebellion against the proprietors' govern- 
ment as represented by Philip Carteret, they still endeavored 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 62. 

* Whitehead, op. cit., p. 66. 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 89. *Ibid., vol. i, p. 31. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN EAST JERSEY 



87 



to recognize the Concessions, and adopted as their leader 
the son of Sir George. Capt. James Carteret seems to 
have been a dissolute person, of little judgment or ability, 
-who simply took advantage of the circumstances to bring 
himself into prominence.^ After his election as " Presi- 
dent," however, he was able to maintain himself against 
the governor and his council. 

The mission of Philip Carteret to England, the energetic 
action of the lords proprietors, and the eventual collapse 
of the rebellion have already been described, for the resist- 
ance was, after all, directed rather against the proprietors' 
land system than the proprietary government. As for the 
reestablishment of Dutch rule, it forms an interesting epi- 
sode, indeed, but it has little or no real connection with the 
political development of East Jersey. During the brief 
Dutch rule the towns were given governments of a schout 
and schepens, after the manner of the Netherlands.^ 
Double sets of names were selected by the townspeople from 
which the magistrates were selected by the authorities at 
'' New Orange." One assembly of the magistrates of 
Achter Kol, as the Dutch called New Jersey, was held at 
Elizabethtown to make laws for the colony, but its work 
was not of importance. 

With the return of Philip Carteret and the reestablish- 
ment of his authority came certain alterations in the powers 
of the departments of the government brought about by the 
" Declaration of the true intent and Meaning of us the 
Lords Proprietors and Explanation of there Concessions," 
etc., issued by Berkeley and Carteret in 1672.-'' The object 
of these changes was to lessen the power of the assembly. 

'Whitehead, Aasi Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. 67-68, but see 
contra, Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 141 and note. 
^ New Jersey Archives , vol. i, pp. 128-129. ^Ibid., pp. 99, I73- 



88 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

The right to regulate meetings and adjournments of the as- 
sembly, to establish courts in particular jurisdictions, and 
to nominate and appoint all officers, was now vested in the 
governor and council alone. The governor and council 
could also henceforth admit planters and freemen without 
the consent of the assembly, and no one was to be ac- 
counted a freeholder or have any vote or hold any office 
who had not taken out a patent for his land. In future, 
ministers were to be appointed by the governor and council 
upon nomination by the townships. 

As the spirit of resistance was for the time being checked, 
these alterations in the powers of the government caused 
no immediate controversy, and as the governor wisely made 
no attempt to inflict serious punishment upon his opponents,^ 
East Jersey entered upon a period of quiet so far as in- 
ternal politics were concerned. The assembly met again 
in November, 1675, ^^^ from that time till 1681 it held 
numerous sessions and accomplished needful legislation. 
An act of oblivion was passed at the end of the first session, 
which, while allowing all judgments to stand, suspended 
further suits to recover damages against any concerned in 
the recent disturbances." No serious party controversy oc- 
curred during the time, and the people showed an inclin- 
ation to support their own government against the at- 
tempts of Andros to establish the power of the Duke of 
York over New Jersey. 

The truce, however, could not be lasting, for, in addition 
to the special causes of party strife in East Jersey, cleavage 
between governor and assembly was practically inevitable 
in all the colonies of the provincial type. Conflict began 
again at a meeting of October, 1681, at Elizabethtown. 

'See, however, Hatfield, op. cit., pp. 151, 186. 
"Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, p. no. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN EAST JERSEY 89 

The chief point involved was the right of the proprietors to 
aher the original Concessions of 1664. This the deputies 
of the towns now denied. As the debate waxed warm, they 
refused to provide for the support of the government, or to 
enact that the constables of the towns should collect the 
proprietors' quit-rent as the council demanded.* They also 
ventured to style themselves the " General Assembly," tak- 
ing the ground that this title applied only to the deputies 
without the governor and csnmcil, and not to all three taken 
together. As a result, the house was summarily dissolved 
by Carteret, but it did not disband without a formal protest 
against the dissolution." 

That the breach thus begun did not grow wider was 
due to the establishment of the government of the Twenty- 
four in place of that of Carteret. Both the new proprietors 
and the planters had all to gain by accommodation and 
agreement, and all to lose 1>y a continuation of the strife of 
the recent administration. Thomas Rudyard, the London 
lawyer, who was the first deputy-governor under the Twenty- 
four, bore a conciliatory letter to the inhabitants of the 
colony,^ and acting doubtless upon instructions, endeavored 
to allay factional dififerences. In March, 1682-3, he pre- 
sided over a harmonious and useful session of the assembly. 
But in spite of his success in this matter, his administration 
was short owing to his want of energy in maintaining the 
land-interests of the Twenty-four.'' 

The Quaker, Gawen Lawrie, his successor, was careful 
to follow the pacific political policy inaugurated by Rudyard, 
though, like him, he did not consider the pecuniary interests 
of the Twenty-four superior to his own.* He brought with 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 354-365- ^Ibid., vol. i, p. 365. 
'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 167. 
* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 498. 



90 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



him to East Jersey a curious document known as the " Fun- 
damental Constitutions," which the Twenty-four had pre- 
pared to take the place of the Concessions of 1665/ 
Though the Fundamental Constitutions never went into 
effect, they must nevertheless retain a certain interest as il- 
lustrating the political ideals of the new proprietors. They 
provided that a governor should be chosen once in three 
years by a vote of sixteen of the proprietors. The governor 
was to rule the province, with the aid of two councils, which 
were to consist partly of the proprietors or their proxies and 
partly of representatives of the freemen, who were to be 
chosen by a mixed system of elections and the casting of 
lots. The freemen were to be such as held fifty acres of 
land. The Fundamental Constitutions, if carried out, would, 
of course, have given the proprietors more power in the gov- 
ernment than they already possessed, while the people would 
have had relatively less. Yet the proprietors seemed to 
think their new system so desirable that they ordered 
Lawrie to apply it only to those who would submit to a 
resurvey and approval of their grants, provide for the pay- 
ment of all back quit-rent, and agree to pass an act for the 
support of the government." Naturally the colonists showed 
no desire to surrender their control of the assembly upon 
such terms, and Lawrie, seeing that confusion must result 
from an attempt to apply the Fundamentals, very sensibly 
laid them aside. 

But though the proprietors were willing to conciliate 
the disaffected elements, they clung tenaciously to their legal 
prerogatives. Lawrie seems to have shown tact in avoid- 
ing quarrels, as the old opposition to the proprietary inter- 
ests was still alive.^ But his policy was negative, and he 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 395. "^Ibid., vol. i,pp. 430,443-446. 
^ Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 72-5; vol. i, p. 477. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN EAST JERSEY gi 

escaped conflict by not insisting upon the proprietary claims. 
He did not even call an assembly till April. 1686, and then 
nothing of account was accomplished. The appearance of 
indifference to any interests but his own was further in- 
creased by the fact that Lawrie continued to reside at 
Elizabethtown instead of at Amboy, in the settlement of 
which the proprietors were so concerned.^ The proprie- 
tors, therefore, removed him from office and censured both 
him and Rudyard.' 

The choice of a successor was, however, a mistake very 
characteristic of the period. In June, 1686, the proprietors 
named as governor Lord Neil Campbell, the brother of the 
ill-fated Arg}'le, who, owing to the downfall of Argyle, was 
seeking a temporary refuge from Scotland. How the 
Papist Earl of Perth and the Quaker Barclay could have 
consented to such an appointment is an enigma. The ap- 
pointment is merely an example of the strangely contradic- 
tory steps which the Twenty-four, separated as they were in 
character, place and interest, sometimes took.^ But a noble- 
man like Lord Neil had little desire to remain in East Jersey 
any longer than his own safety demanded, and after an un- 
eventful stay of only a few months, he returned to Scotland, 
leaving the government in the hands of Andrew Hamilton, 
formerly a merchant of Edinburgh, a man possessing the 
Scottish qualities of prudence and tact in a high degree.* 
In him the proprietors were to find their first agent of abil- 
ity. Before any marked results could appear from the 
change of administration, however, the proprietary govern- 
ment was overturned by King James, and New Jersey was 

'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 427-8. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 492, 531. 
'Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, pp. IS3-6. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 541. 



92 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

united with New England and New York under his tool, 
Sir Edmund Andros. Just how this came about we shall 
investigate later. The change, for the time being at least, 
put an end to further political developments within the 
colony. 

The people of East Jersey seem to have submitted to 
Andros with remarkable unconcern, nor was the overthrow 
of James the signal for any such uprising as marked the 
history of New England or New York. It would indeed 
appear that there was some little Jacobite sentiment among 
the more prominent planters,^ and this is hardly a matter of 
surprise when we recall how closely several of the proprie- 
tors were associated with the Stuart interests. But the 
feeling about the transatlantic events was not strong 
enough apparently to form an issue in the colony. The fall 
of Andros left New Jersey without any regular govern- 
ment, but the people, under their town and county officers, 
suffered little inconvenience. There was naturally an ele- 
ment in the colony opposed to the reestablishment of the old 
proprietary rule, and the inhabitants " scrupled to obey " 
first John Tatham, known to be a Jacobite," and then Col. 
Joseph Dudley, who were successively named to the gov- 
ernorship by the proprietors. But eventually the need of 
some regular government was recognized, and when Andrew 
Hamilton arrived in 1692 with a new commission, he was 
well received. 

From this time until 1697 East Jersey enjoyed seeming 
political quiet. Regular meetings of the assembly, chosen 
according to the Concessions, were held, and under the 
shrewd guidance of Hamilton quarrels were avoided and 
useful legislation carried through. Yet this period was 

^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, pp. 656, 701, 746. 
'Smith, New Jersey, pp. 191-2; Whitehead, op. cit., p. 185. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN EAST lERSEY 93 

merely the calm before a storm, for the revival of the 
Elizabethtown agitation in the case of Jones z's. Fuller- 
ton was certain to produce renewed party discord. With 
a less able hand at the helm the clash could not be long 
avoided. 

In 1697 Parliament passed an act requiring all proprie- 
tors of colonies to present their respective governors to 
the king for approval, and " that no other than a natural 
born subject of England should serve in any public post of 
trust or profit." As Hamilton was a Scotchman, he was 
apparently covered by the act, and the proprietors, nerv- 
ously anxious to retain the good-wHl of the royal authori- 
ties, felt obliged to dismiss him in spite of his excellent ser- 
vice. In his stead one Jeremiah Basse was named as gov- 
ernor of East Jersey.^ The selection was unfortunate. 
Nothing is known of Basse's earlier life except that he had 
been an Anabaptist preacher.^ But his later career shows 
that he was an adventurer of no very high type, one of a 
class only too prominent in most of the proprietary and 
royal provinces. Basse's appointment had previously been 
approved by the king," but he avoided giving the security 
for good behavior required by the act, although the omis- 
sion was called to his attention by the lords of trade.* This 
prevented the appointment from being officially confirmed, 
and opened the door for new difiiculties. Moreover, it ap- 
peared that the commission of Basse was signed by only ten 
instead of the required sixteen proprietors. 

The opponents of the proprietary regime were thus given 
plausible reasons for refusing to recognize the appointment 
of the new governor as valid.' Some of the resident pro- 

^ New Jersey Archives . vol. ii, p. 149. 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 229. ^ Ibid., p. 195. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 150. * Smith, op. cit., p. 210. 



94 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



prietors themselves, who looked upon the adventurer with 
no friendly eye, also questioned his powers/ Basse never- 
theless entered upon his duties as governor, but, alarmed 
lest his authority should not be acknowledged, did not call 
the assembly till February 21, 1699. Then he adopted the 
bold course of forming an alliance with the anti-proprietary 
party, which was by this time showing dangerous strength, 
owing to the successful mission of Jeffry Jones. Thus he 
evidently hoped to gain popular support. He therefore con- 
sented to the passage of a bill, sent up by the anti-proprietary 
majority in the assembly preventing the election of any 
person as a deputy who was a proxy or agent of any pro- 
prietor." This act was aimed especially at George Willocks, 
the agent for the sale of the quit-rents, who had been 
chosen as a representative of Perth Amboy; but its more 
general effect would certainly be to damage very materially 
the political influence of the proprietors. Though Wil- 
locks was thus forced to withdraw, the conflict stirred up 
was so violent that Basse thought it best to visit West Jersey, 
of which province he was also governor, upon the pretext 
that its affairs needed consideration. He appointed Andrew 
Bowne, long known as a bitter enemy of the proprietors, 
as his deputy in East Jersey.^ 

During this time Basse gave much attention to the pirates 
who infested the coast, and did good service against them.* 
Thus he endeavored to win the favor of the home gov- 
ernment. He also tried in every way to connect the Scotch 
proprietors and settlers with the operations of the free- 
booters and smugglers.^ This was skillful politics, but it 

* Whitehead, op. cit., p. 198, note. 

' Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, p. 367- 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 267. 

*Ibid., vol. ii, p. 243. "Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 272, 288. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN EAST JERSEY g^ 

apparently did little harm to persons as well known as 
Morris and his associates. 

Basse's return to East Jersey led to renewed disorder. 
A new assembly met only to dissolve in confusion, and 
armed revolt was threatened by the adherents of the pro- 
prietors led by Morris and Willocks.^ But at this juncture 
Basse was removed and Hamilton restored to office. The 
solicitor-general had given his opinion that a native of Scot- 
land was not debarred from acting by the statute of 1697,^ 
and the lords of trade, when applied to, replied that the 
right of the proprietors to govern the province was about 
to be submitted to trial, but that meanwhile no danger would 
be incurred by the restoration of Hamilton.' Hamilton 
was therefore recommissioned, and Basse left New Jersey 
before his arrival. It was now hoped by the proprietors 
that the ability of the old governor would again secure peace 
and quiet. 

But with the encouragement they had received the anti- 
proprietary party had already grown too strong, and, more- 
over, the irreconcilables were able to make much of Hamil- 
ton's not having the formal approval of the crown.* 
Hamilton was obliged to employ a technicality in dissolv- 
ing an assembly with a hostile majority, and the step led 
to the holding of seditious meetings in which preparations 
were made to defy the proprietary authority. A condition 
of violence and anarchy ensued. Proprietary officers were 
maltreated, and courts at Elizabethtown, Piscataway, and 
Newark were broken up amid scenes of the greatest violence." 
At Middletown the insurgents were especially active, but 
when the governor raised a force to restore order there, he 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 210. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 374. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 369-371. 

*Ibid., vol. ii, p. 371. ''Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 313-317. 333-9- 



96 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

was met by a stronger force and compelled to withdraw.^ 
Actual bloodshed, indeed, did not occur, and the disturb- 
ances had many of the ridiculous incidents common to such 
movements in the colonies. Yet this result was due only 
to the weakness of the proprietors ; the insurgents appeared 
in military array and showed determination.- Among 
their leaders, Richard Salter of Middletown, and Samuel 
Carter of Elizabethtown, made themselves especially con- 
spicuous. 

The immediate outcome was the end of proprietary gov- 
ernment, and the governor himself was seized and tempor- 
arily imprisoned.^ This period became henceforth known 
in East Jersey as the " Revolution," a term which in com- 
mon parlance always signified this disturbance, " and not 
the glorious Revolution by the Accession of King William 
and Queen Mary to the Throne of Britain." "* 

Meanwhile a series of events, which we have later to 
trace, was leading to the assumption of control over the 
Jerseys by the Crown of England. This result was certain 
to come eventually, and now, although some of the proprie- 
tors continued to struggle against the wishes of the English 
government, the more long-sighted, like Morris, saw that 
nothing was to be gained by prolonging the condition of 
anarchy, and were anxious only to make the best terms 
possible for the protection of their interests. After ex- 
tended negotiations, the surrender of all governmental 
power was eventually effected on April 15, 1702. Lord 
Cornbury was then commissioned as the first royal gov- 
ernor of the Jerseys, and order was restored. 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 327. 329- "^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 362. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 364. 

^Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, pp. 45-6- 



CHAPTER VI "• 

The Land System of West Jersey 

The land system of West Jersey was intended by the 
proprietors to be as simple and just as could be devised. 
The confused and complex arrangements, modeled after the 
institutions of feudalism, had no place in a province where 
the democratic ideas of the Friends were to receive their 
practical test. But absolute mathematical accuracy was to 
prevent disorder and dispute. The first step was to 
be the division of West Jersey into ten equal parts, to be 
known as tenths. These in turn were to be subdivided each 
into ten smaller parts, to be known as proprieties or hun- 
dreds.^ These divisions, it was hoped, could be sold to per- 
sons inclined to enter upon colonization, who would thus 
be added to the number of proprietors. Whatever other 
mistakes the Friends may have committed, they had at 
least no intention to monopolize the proprietary right to 
the soil of their province. 

The arbitration between Byllinge and Fenwick as to their 
respective interests in West Jersey resulted in giving the 
latter ownership of one-tenth of the province, while Byllinge 
retained the other nine-tenths.* This was the first divis- 
ion of the soil. We have already noted, however, how 
Fenwick's share came into the legal possession of Elbridge 
and Warner, though Fenwick long refused to recognize 
their rights, while Byllinge was obliged to make over this 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 241. ' Mulford, New Jersey, p. 166. 

97 



98 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

nine-tenths to his trustees, Penn, Lucas and Lawrie, for 
the benefit of his creditors/ This arrangement could be 
readily carried out under the system of tenths and pro- 
prieties. 

Penn, Lucas and Lawrie started their trusteeship happily 
by disposing of two considerable shares of Byllinge's pur- 
chase to his principal creditors. One whole tenth of the 
province went to Thomas Hutchinson, Thomas Pearson, 
Joseph Helmsley, George Hutcheson and Mahlon Stacy, 
all of Yorkshire,^ while another large interest went to a 
group of Friends resident in London.^ 

Meanwhile, James Wasse, Richard Hartshorne and Rich- 
ard Guy had been commissioned to proceed to the Delaware 
to make preliminary surveys, and in the next year settle- 
ment began. Before the founders of Burlington left Eng- 
land, however, the proprietors issued a document known as 
" The Concessions and Agreements of the Proprietors, Free- 
holders and Inhabitants of the Province of West New 
Jersey in America." * This was intended to form the basis 
for the government of the colony, just as Berkeley and Car- 
teret's Concessions had done for East Jersey. But, being 
in the form of an agreement, it was signed as well by the 
" freeholders and inhabitants of the said province " as by 
the proprietors. 

Naturally questions of land occupy a prominent place in 
the West Jersey Concessions. But it is evident that the 
requirements of actual colonization had already forced 
some alterations in the mathematical theories of the proprie- 
tors. It was first provided that all lands taken up by pur- 

* Smith, New Jersey, p. 79. 

* West Jersey Records, liber B (part i), pp. 131, 138- 
'Smith, op. cit., p. 92. 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 241. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF WEST JERSEY 



99 



chase from the natives or otherwise should be divided into 
ten parts, and that the Yorkshire Friends, as the terms of 
their purchase entitled them, should have the privilege of 
selecting one of these. Other persons, holding ten parts, 
should then be allowed to choose any of the remaining divis- 
ions, while those holding interests not footing up to ten 
shares might nevertheless locate within any of the remain- 
ing parts. Such tenths were, however, to be divided into 
proprieties, and each settler was to receive as many of these 
as was due him. 

Provision was also made for persons, not proprietors, 
" adventuring " in West New Jersey. But it is noticeable 
that such persons were required to have the consent of one 
or more of the proprietors, certified under their hand and seal. 
All who thus entered the province before April, 1677, were 
to have seventy acres for their own persons, and a similar 
amount for every able-bodied male servant transported. 
Whoever merely sent servants was likewise to have seventy 
acres for each. For each weaker servant over fourteen, fifty 
acres was given, and each servant entering West Jersey 
was to have fifty acres for his own use at the end of his 
service. But all such colonists must pay yearly to the pro- 
prietors to whom the land belonged one penny per acre 
for land in towns and one-half penny per acre for lands 
outside of town bounds, such payment to begin within two 
years after the lands were laid out. 

The terms grew less liberal if settlers delayed. For all 
who entered West Jersey before April, 1678, amounts of 
fifty and thirty acres were offered on similar conditions. 
But the quit-rent was now put at a penny farthing per acre 
for land in towns and three farthings per acre for land in 
the country. All who entered before April, 1679, were to 
have amounts of 40 and 20 acres, for which the rent was 
put at one and one-half pence per acre in towns and one 



lOO THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

penny for land outside. But upon all lands two able-bodied 
male servants or three weaker ones were to be maintained 
for every one hundred acres, beside the grant for the person 
of the master himself. If after three years from notifica- 
tion such conditions were not fulfilled, it might result in 
the loss of the land for twenty years, unless the general 
assembly judged the requirement impossible of fulfilment 
because of poverty or other reason. Proprietors inhabiting 
the province were to keep one person upon every lot taken 
up by them, and if said lot exceeded two hundred acres, 
they must keep one servant for every two hundred acres. 
All other proprietors must maintain a servant for every one 
hundred acres. But such conditions were to last for only 
ten years. 

The general oversight of both the governmental pro- 
visions of the Concessions and those concerning land was 
to rest in the hands of ten commissioners. The first ten 
were appointed by the proprietors. Among them were 
Thomas Olive, Daniel Wills, John Penford and Richard 
Guy, all of whom played active parts in the early affairs of 
West Jersey.^ But after the first year the commissioners 
were to be chosen annually by the proprietors, freeholders 
and inhabitants. At the first election they were to be 
chosen at a general meeting, but thereafter the inhabitants 
of each ten of the one hundred proprieties were to elect 
one commissioner. 

When a grant of land was to be made, it was first to be 
recorded by the register of the province, who was then to 
make out a certificate to the surveyor to lay out, limit, and 
bound the required number of acres. Having done this, 
the surveyor was to certify the same back to the register, 
stating the bounds. The register was then to enter the 

' Smith, New Jersey, p. 92. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF WEST JERSEY jqi 

survey in a book to be kept for the purpose. The entry 
was then to be endorsed on the back of the grant. Thus 
the process of obtaining land was more simple than in East 
Jersey. Only two records were made — that of the title and 
that of the return of the survey. The formal issuing of a 
patent under the seal of the province was dispensed with. 

After the institution of the system of proprieties, which, 
as we shall see, was not carried out completely in practice, 
the greatest peculiarity, as well as the most creditable fea- 
ture in the West Jersey Concessions, was the free election 
of the commissioners by the freeholders. Inasmuch, how- 
ever, as no one could receive lands unless endorsed by the 
proprietors, there was little immediate danger to the pro- 
prietary interests in this provision. The terms of settle- 
ment were liberal, but no more so than those offered by 
Berkeley and Carteret, while the reservation of a quit-rent 
shows that the desire for profit was not entirely lacking. 
But as the rents were to be paid to individual proprietors, 
rather than to a proprietary office, their payment would 
have appeared more of a simple business arrangement than 
in East Jersey. As a matter of fact, we find little evidence 
of quit-rent being actually required at all. The question, 
of course, never became an issue as in East Jersey. 

The Concessions and Agreements were at once put into 
operation. The expedition of 1677 was accompanied by 
representatives of the owners of the Yorkshire tenth, and 
also by the commissioners of the London creditors of Byl- 
linge. These agents were charged with the duty of select- 
ing the tenths of their respective principals. After purchase 
had been made from the Indians, the Yorkshire commis- 
sioners chose their tenth, reaching from the Falls of the 
Delaware down, while the London representatives took their 
land near the present site of Gloucester. But the London 
agents were eventually induced to change their location, 



I02 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

and take up their tenth immediately below that of the York- 
shire purchasers, joining with them in the settlement of the 
town of Burlington. A surveyor named Noble was em- 
ployed to lay out the town, and the main street fornied the 
division between the two tenths. Ten lots were laid out 
on each side of this to be distributed among the holders of 
the several proprieties.^ 

For a time there was some effort to carry out fully the 
original system of tenths and proprieties. In 1677 another 
entire propriety had been disposed of by Byllinge's trustees 
in satisfaction of debt to five Irish Friends,^ and in 1681 
representatives of these purchasers took up land in a new 
or third tenth, usually called the Irish tenth, reaching from 
Oldman's Creek to Pemisoakin Creek.' Three years later 
a fourth tenth, extending from Timber Creek to Oldman's 
Creek, was also beginning to be settled.* 

But the arrangement soon proved itself unmanageable. 
Recognizing that it would be impracticable to take up an 
entire propriety at a time, the proprietors had originally 
agreed that each propriety owner should at first receive a 
dividend of 5,200 acres. ^ And in November, 1681, the 
commissioners still further modified the system by agreeing 
upon a set of rules regarding the distribution of land.'' The 
surveyor was now ordered to measure the entire front of 
the Delaware from Assanpink Creek to Cape May, that the 
division lines for each tenth might be found. Each tenth 

•Smith, op. cii., pp. 98-9. 

* Wesi Jersey Records, liber B (part i), p. 50. 

* Clement, Proceedings of the West Jersey Surveyors' Association, 
p. 30. 

* Mulford, New Jersey, p. 245, note. 

* Stokes, Proceedings of the West Jersey Surveyors' Association, p. 48. 
'Smith, op. cit., pp. 131-5. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF WEST JERSEY 103 

was to front on the Delaware, and 3,200 acres were to be 
allowed to each holder of a propriety, wherever he chose to 
take it up in the tenth. But all lands so chosen were to be 
taken up within six months or the choice was to become 
void. If, however, there was demand for land by actual 
settlers over and above the 3,200 acres to a propriety, the 
commissioners reserved the right to take it up to the 5,200 
acres provided for in the first agreement. Finally, after 
other minor though necessary provisions, it was ordered 
that all persons who had already received land in the first 
and second tenths should show their deeds or writings, as 
proof of their proper title, to four of the commissioners 
named for the purpose. 

Finally, on August 8th and 9th, 1682, it was ordered that 
Daniel Leeds, the surveyor, on or before the 7th of the 
tenth month next, begin to lay forth the several tenths by 
dividing the entire river front into ten equal parts.^ But 
//for some reason this order was never executed, and with it 
passes away the idea of a mathematical division into tenths. 

The position of the commissioners in the land sys- 
tem also soon changed. Owing to developments, to 
be considered more fully in the next chapter, the gov- 
ernmental powers originally vested in the commissioners 
by the Concessions and Agreements passed in 1681 into the 
hands of a governor and council.^ Commissioners were 
still chosen, however, to have charge of the apportionment 
of land, though they were elected by the assembly instead 
of directly by the people.' But the importance of the com- 
missioners evidently decreased gradually until they became 
merely agents of the assembly, whose duty it was to examine 
claims for land and authorize surveys. The number of 

'Clement, op. cii., p. 119. 'Smith, op. cit., p. 126. 

* Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, pp. 444, 457, etc. 



I04 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



commissioners was lessened, and they were apportioned 
among the several jurisdictions and counties. 

Finally, in 1687 the assembly declined further to look 
after purely proprietary affairs/ Thus ended the co- 
operation of the inhabitants of West Jersey in the appor- 
tionment of the lands. There was apparently no thought 
that an important power was being sacrificed. 

It was now necessary for the proprietors to devise new 
means for the management of their business, and accord- 
ingly, on February 14, 1687-8, a general meeting of those 
holding interests was held at Burlington, and eleven per- 
sons, including Samuel Jennings and Thomas Olive, were 
selected to direct the affairs of the proprietors for the en- 
suing year. A definite agreement for the establishment of 
this " Council of Proprietors " was also drawn up and 
signed.^ Soon afterward, however, the number of mem- 
bers of the council was reduced to nine, as more con- 
venient.^ Thus was instituted a body which continued dur- 
ing the colonial period to be the directing power in the 
land system of West Jersey. 

The members of the council were elected annually, five 
being chosen at Burlington and four at Gloucester. The 
council itself selected its president, vice-president, sur- 
veyor-general, clerk and other officers. Thomas Olive was 
the first president of the council, and was regularly re- 
elected until his death in 1693. Thomas Gardiner was then 
chosen. He was succeeded by John Tatham, Francis Dav- 
enport, William Biddle, Andrew Hamilton, and Mahlon 
Stacy. Andrew Robeson was surveyor-general until his 
death. In 1694 Thomas Gardiner was chosen and con- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 222. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey; Smith, Nez0 
Jersey, p. igg. 

^ Smith, op. cit., p. 201. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF WEST JERSEY 105 

tinued. John Reading acted regularly as clerk. Among 
other prominent members of the board were Samuel Jen- 
nings, William Royden, Peter Fretwell, and John Hugg. 
The council met regularly twice a year, in the spring and 
fall, but other meetings were held on occasion. At times 
of great importance all proprietors in the province were 
summoned to meet with the council.^ 

While the council assumed general control over all pro- 
prietary concerns, it acted upon individual claims for land 
only in peculiar or extraordinary cases. Commissioners 
were still annually appointed by the council in the counties, 
which had by this time taken the place of the tenths as 
administrative divisions, whose duty it was to examine all 
deeds for lands within their jurisdictions, and to issue war- 
rants for the surveying and taking up of the same. But 
all proprietors applying for warrants must sign an instru- 
ment stating their willingness to pay their respective por- 
tions towards the management of the proprietary affairs. 
This arrangement continued as long as the proprietary gov- 
ernment lasted. Samuel Jennings was the first commis- 
sioner named by the council for Burlington county, and 
John Reading for Gloucester." 

An early resolution of the council was one authorizing 
proprietors to take up their shares when and where they 
pleased. This brought definitely to an end the attempt to 
lay off the province mathematically, and substituted an ar- 
rangement like that in East Jersey, where the proprietors 
simply received dividends of the lands according to their re- 
spective interests. The council also endeavored to hasten 
the taking-up of lands by re-adopting the provision of an 
earlier act of the assembly, that all warrants for surveys not 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors, passim. 
'* Ibid.; Smith, op. cit., pp. 203. 205-6. 



Io6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

executed within three months should be void.^ It also ad- 
dressed the English proprietors urging them to locate their 
shares without delay. ^ 

The distribution of land in West Jersey, which had 
meanwhile been going on, offers some points of dif- 
ference from that in East Jersey. The original dividend 
of 5,200 acres to a proprietary was soon followed by 
a second " taking up " of 5,000 acres. It was, of course, 
required that all such lands should be located within the 
tracts already purchased from the Indians. Only on 
special considerations did the council of proprietors grant 
to individuals the privilege of independent purchase from 
the natives. But from the first there were many proprietary 
shares which were not claimed. 

Among the earlier settlers a large share held proprietary 
interests, and these naturally became the most considerable 
landholders in the province. Other settlers acquired inter- 
ests after settlement. The recorded sales of fractions of 
proprieties are numerous, though usually only small inter- 
ests were thus acquired.' One thirty-second of a propriety 
was the amount required for a voice in proprietary affairs. 
It must not be forgotten, however, that, as there were theo- 
retically one hundred full shares in the West Jersey pro- 
prietorship as against twenty-four in East Jersey, the cor- 
responding fractions of interests were of very different 
value in land. 

But still many of the West Jersey settlers merely ob- 
tained surveys of land from some one of the proprietors. 
For these in most cases a consideration was paid averaging 
about ten pounds for one hundred acres. The number of 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors, Feb. 23, 1688-9. 

''Ibid., March 26, 1689. 

' West Jersey Records, liber B, passim; New Jersey Archives, toI. 
xxi, pp. 394-541- 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF WEST JERSEY 107 

persons obtaining less than this amount is comparatively 
small, while more extensive grants of 200,300 and even 500 
acres are not rare. This shows that the holdings of the 
bona-fide settlers were somewhat larger in West Jersey 
than in East Jersey. As in East Jersey, the lands first 
taken up were those adjoining the Delaware and other 
navigable streams.^ This fact led the commissioners in 
1 68 1 to forbid any one from taking up land on both sides 
of a creek, unless there was good cause, and a similar rule 
was reenacted by the council of proprietors in 1688-9.^ 

With the appearance of the West Jersey Society in 1691, 
an important new element is introduced into the land sys- 
tem of the province. The interests of the society were so 
extensive, including as they did more than one-fifth of the 
land of West Jersey, that their operations demanded really 
a separate system. The West Jersey Society was purely a 
business company, the object of which was to make profit 
from land sales. But the fact that it was an English company 
greatly handicapped it in its work, and forced it to rely upon 
more or less unreliable agents. The first agent for the care 
and sale of its lands was Jeremiah Basse, who had already 
acted in a similar capacity for Dr. Daniel Coxe, whom the 
society brought out.' His commission empowered him to 
take up lands, to inspect and direct the buying and selling 
of the company's goods, and to act to the best of his power 
in all their concerns. For a time Nathaniel Westland seems 
to have been associated with Basse, but in 1694 Basse ap- 
pointed Joshua Barkstead, his own step-brother, as his as- 

* West Jersey Records, liber B, passim ; New Jersey Archives, vol. 
xxi, pp. 394-541. 

'Smith, op. cit., p. 131; Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of 
West Jersey, Feb. 23, 1688-9. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 91; Clement, Proceedings of the 
West Jersey Surveyors' Association, p. 135. 



I08 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

sistant/ In 1692 the society had commissioned Thomas 
Revell as register of deeds, and in 1696, when Basse left 
the province, he transferred 24,000 acres of the society's 
land to Revell as trustee, so that sales might not be inter- 
rupted by his absence/ In 1699 the agentship w^as given 
to Andrew Hamilton, whose administration as governor of 
the Jerseys had already proved his capacity. But upon 
Hamilton's death in 1703, Lewis Morris of East Jersey 
succeeded, thus adding to his already large influence in 
the Jerseys.^ 

The lands of the society were naturally located in the 
remoter parts of West Jersey. It obtained from Coxe, be- 
sides unapportioned interests, the great " Minnisinck Pro- 
vince," lying between the Delaware and the Blue Moun- 
tains, and estimated at 200,000 acres, ^ and also a survey of 
95,000 acres, including all of Cape May County.* In ad- 
dition to this, Basse, during his agentship, located 95,000 
acres, chiefly in what is now Hunterdon County and on the 
Cohanzie River and Delaware Bay."* 

But though Basse and Revell both appear to have been 
energetic, the society suffered greatly from the incapacity 
of its agents. When Morris was appointed he could ob- 
tain no accounting from Basse and Westland, who were in 
default with their accounts, so that the society could get no 
proper statement of what amount of land they had sold." 
It is certain, however, that they had disposed of large tracts, 
and that the portions purchased were larger than in the 
earlier settled parts of West Jersey.' The interests of the 
society also suffered greatly from squatters, but this was 
to some extent unavoidable. 

'Clement, op. cii., p. 141. ^Ibid., pp. 142-3- 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. ii, p. 41. 

* Clement, op. cit., p. 125. "Ibid., p. 141. ^ Ibid., p. 142. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF WEST JERSEY 



109 



All things considered, the land system of West Jersey 
was free from the more serious difficulties which afflicted 
East Jersey ; nor does there ever seem to have been, during 
the proprietary period, any general feeling of jealousy or 
dislike of the proprietors. The land system, though, of 
course, not modern in conception, will certainly compare 
favorably with that of the other proprietary provinces. 
With few exceptions the administration was honest, and 
there is no indication that the proprietors ever sought ad- 
vantages at the expense of the smaller landholders. 

Yet, even in West Jersey it was unavoidable that there 
should be some irregularities and disputes. One cause of 
trouble was found in the operations of the headstrong Fen- 
wick at Salem. Upon Fenwick's arrival in West Jersey, he 
styled himself sole proprietor of the province, appointed a 
register and a surveyor, and undertook to grant lands in 
a rather indiscriminate manner.^ In spite of several efforts 
at conciliation, he continued to ignore the legitimate proprie- 
tors until 1682, when an agreement was at length affected 
with him through the instrumentality of Penn. He was 
allowed 150,000 acres, that being the amount he had al- 
ready granted in Salem town and vicinity, and his deeds to 
that amount were recognized as valid. All further claims 
Fenwick surrendered to Penn,^ and as that distinguished 
person had already acquired the interests of Elbridge and 
Warner, he thus became the recognized proprietor of the 
" Salem Tenth." ' 

Another somewhat similar difficulty was due to the con- 
duct of Edward Byllinge, who undertook to grant lands in 
. his own name, before his trustees had resigned their trust 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 193. 413-5: vol. xxi, pp. 559-568, etc. 

*Ibid., vol. i, p. 370. 

' Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii. p. loi . 



no THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

in 1682. His action in this regard was clearly illegal, and 
the council of proprietors promptly voted such deeds in- 
sufficient for the issue of warrants of survey/ But some 
annoyance was caused by the presentation of such claims.^ 

Some annoyance was also caused the council by the diffi- 
culty of ascertaining how much land in the province had 
already been taken up and by what warrants. In the land 
regulations of 1681, all persons who had obtained lands 
in the first and second tenths were ordered to bring their 
deeds or writings for the same to any two of four commis- 
sioners named.^ But in December, 1688, the council of 
proprietors ordered a similar inquest for the inhabitants of 
Gloucester County, and in May, 1687, one for Burlington 
County. As various accidents occurred to prevent the later 
inspection, another order to the same effect was voted on 
the 25th of August (the 6th month).* 

Honorable as the members of the council of proprietors 
undoubtedly were, they did not escape all attack on the 
ground that they were conducting business for their own 
individual interests. In 1689 Thomas Thackera attacked 
the council for selling certain pine trees which had been 
uprooted, and at the same meeting Mahlon Stacy, one of 
the original Yorkshire purchasers, presented a paper "which 
seemed to say various hard things against the council." ' 
These complaints led to the resignation of the council as 
a body, but, upon a new election, the more prominent mem- 
bers of the old council were again chosen.® 

As was almost inevitable, there were some cases of tres- 

^ Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, Oct. 10, :688. 
*Ibid., March 25, 1689. -^ Smith, New Jersey, pp. 134-5. 

* Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey. 
'Upon being interrogated, however, he "did not charge the Council 
with anything." 
^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey. 



THE LAND SYSTEM OF WEST JERSEY m 

pass Upon proprietary lands, in spite of the annual selection 
of rangers by the council of proprietors. But the difficul- 
ties arising therefrom were not serious/ The hardest prob- 
lem that the council had to face was undoubtedly that of es- 
tablishing proper relations with Dr. Coxe, the West Jersey 
Society, and other proprietors in England. A friendly cor- 
respondence was maintained with Coxe. This related 
largely to the boundary-line controversy with East Jersey, 
in negotiating which Coxe received the support of the coun- 
cil. That body, however, desired Coxe, upon an intended 
visit, to bring a certificate of just what interests he had 
purchased. They endeavored also to obtain from the other 
English proprietors a statement of their holdings.^ 

When Coxe was bought out by " the Society," the prob- 
blem became more serious, as the operations of that com- 
pany were carried on independently of the council. In May, 
1695, Jeremiah Basse, as agent for the society, appeared 
at a council, claimed thirty proprieties for his employers, 
and demanded a seat at the board, with as many " voats " 
as they held proprieties. But the council resolved that if 
Basse gave evidence of his rights, the West Jersey Society 
should have liberty to elect as many representatives, resi- 
dents of the province, for the thirty proprieties as would be 
proportional to the number chosen for the forty proprieties 
held in Burlington and Gloucester Counties.^ Apparently 
Basse did not accept this offer. The council then endeav- 
ored to secure the passage by the assembly of a bill pre- 
pared by itself " constituting " the council and putting pro- 
prietors under obligation to whatsoever should be trans- 
acter by it.* In May, 1698, the council was, however, 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, Nov. 4, 
1689, May 13. 1693. 
'^Ibid., Nov. 4, 1689, May 13, 1693. 
^Ibid., p. 73. *' Ibid., p. 79. 



112 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

advised that the surveyor general was Hkely to be inter- 
rupted by one claiming under the society. Such an attack 
it prepared to resist by a process at law.^ Yet, while 
Basse was governor little could be accomplished. 

When Governor Hamilton superseded Basse as agent for 
the society the situation rapidly cleared. On May 25, 1700, 
Hamilton met the Council and produced instructions which 
ordered him to consult with them regarding the laying out 
of lands. The society now claimed only twenty proprieties. 
The council at once recognized the right of the agent to a 
seat, and forthwith elected him as president.* At the next 
meeting the council declared null and void all surveys made 
by Barkstead and John Jewell in virtue of a commission 
from the society during the administration of Basse. This 
action was approved by the governor as agent. ^ Harmony 
between the leading proprietors in the province and in 
England was thus for the time being secured. 

Matters such as these were of course of a serious nature 
for those concerned. As compared with the savage con- 
flicts in which the East Jersey proprietorship was involved, 
however, they were trivial. 

During the closing years of proprietary rule the West 
Jersey Council was busy in perfecting the arrangements for 
a large new Indian purchase above the Falls of the Dela- 
ware. This was to be the basis for a third dividend of the 
land of the province. The dividend was not actually accom- 
plished, however, until after the Jerseys hnd come under 
royal control.* 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, p. q3. 
'^ Ibid., pp. 99-100. ^ Ibid., p. 103. 

* Smith, New Jersey, p. 95 (note); Minutes of the Council of Pro- 
prietors of West Jersey. 



CHAPTER VII 

Political Conditions in West Jersey Under the 
Proprietors 

The political system of West Jersey under the proprie- 
tors must have special interest, inasmuch as it was the first 
attempt of the Society of Friends to carry out in practice- 
those political ideals which they derived from their peculiar 
religious doctrines. Here, rather than in Pennsylvania, 
are seen the applications of the teachings of Fox, unmixed 
with the ideas of feudal proprietorship. 

The form of government elaborated by the Quaker own- 
ers of West Jersey appeared, as we have seen, in the Con- 
cessions and Agreements of 1676-7.^ Whatever arrange- 
ments existed before that time were temporary makeshifts 
only. We cannot now say definitely how the Concessions 
and Agreements were prepared, but the biographers of Penn 
have always claimed for him their practical authorship, and 
the claim is inherently probable. The later conduct of 
Edward Byllinge certainly seems to preclude the possibility 
of his having any leading share in drawing up the Con- 
cessions and Agreements. 

The Concessions and Agreements are a lengthy docu- 
ment, but are taken up for the most part by provisions re- 
garding land and guarantees of private rights. The latter 
clauses have much political significance. It was declared 
that the Concessions and Agreements were to be the funda- 
mental law of the colony, and that whosoever moved any 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 241. 

1 1.3 



114 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



change in their principles should be proceeded against as a 
traitor. Their provisions were to be " recorded in a fair 
table in the assembly house," and also in every hall of jus- 
tice, where they were to be read solemnly to the people four 
times a year. It was laid down as the first fundamental 
that there should be freedom of conscience. Then trial by 
jury was guaranteed, followed by provisions to ensure fair 
trials. Imprisonment for debt was abolished, if the debtor 
had no means to pay, and there were other similar guaran- 
tees against oppression. 

The clauses concerning government itself come at the end 
of the Concessions, but are of a striking character. Prac- 
tically absolute power was put into the hands of the general 
assembly, which was to consist of one hundred persons, to 
be elected annually by the proprietors, freeholders and in- 
habitants, not " by the common and confused way of 
cry's and voices, but by putting Balls into Balloting Boxes." 
One representative was to be chosen for each of the 
one hundred proprieties, and no qualification was re- 
quired except free-hold. The members of the assembly 
were to receive instructions from those electing them, and 
were to be bound to act in accordance therewith. They were 
to receive one shilling per day during sessions as remun- 
eration, but this was likewise to be paid by their electors. 
There was to be absolute freedom of speech in the assembly, 
and all votes were to be public. The assembly was to pass 
all laws for the province, to establish courts and jurisdic- 
tions, and to levy taxes. It was also to elect ten " Com- 
missioners of Estate," who were to conduct the affairs of 
the province during adjournment. The absolutely liberal 
and democratic character of the Concessions and Agree- 
ments has often been justly praised by historians. The sin- 
cerity of the proprietors, who reserved practically no pecu- 
liar power to themselves, is demonstrated beyond all doubt. It 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN WEST JERSEY n^ 

is true that many of them expected to remove to West Jersey 
themselves, and thus might enjoy the benefits of the Con- 
cessions and Agreements. It must also be remembered that 
since no lands could be granted to any person not vouched 
for by a proprietor, it was almost certain that the inhabitants 
of the colony v^^ould be in close accord with the views of the 
Friends. Still there was nothing to give the proprietors a 
controlling influence except their position as the largest 
land-owners. Although the land system of West Jersey 
was proprietary, the effect of the Concessions and Agree- 
ments, if executed, would have been to make the colony in 
its government practically a corporate colony, standing in 
much the same relation to the home government as Ply- 
mouth or New Haven before their absorption by their larger 
neighbors. But West Jersey would have been a real demo- 
cracy without the limited franchise of the boasted New 
England " republics." 

Through no fault of the proprietors, however, their sys- 
tem was not destined to be thoroughly tested. During the 
first few years after the settlement of Burlington no as- 
sembly was called, doubtless because no need for one was 
felt, and the affairs of the colony were managed by the com- 
missioners originally named by the proprietors. Mean- 
while their powers to establish a government had been 
called into question by James of York and Governor 
Andros,^ and only the influence of Penn prevented the loss 
of that right. After much negotiation, James was obliged, 
as we shall see, to give up his claims to both the soil and 
government of West Jersey. But while he formally made 
over the soil to Byllinge and his trustees, he gave up his 
claims to government to Edward Byllinge alone.^ Byllinge 

* Smith, New Jersey, pp. 93-4. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 332. 



, 1 6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

had sigiied the Concessions and Agreements with the other 
proprietors ; but now, eager to assert his new-found author- 
ity, he disregarded what he had done and commissioned 
Samuel Jennings as governor of ^^'est Jersey/ To take 
such a step was of course to admit that James had pre- 
viously held the power of government, but this obvious 
fact had no effect upon Byllinge. The other proprietors 
appear to have been unwilling to bring the matter again to 
an issue, and therefore avoided it by electing Byllinge as 
governor of West Jersey. ^ 

Samuel Jennings, who had accepted the commission 
tentatively to prevent possible disorder," on November 21, 
1 68 1, called the first assembly held in the province. This 
body proceeded to lay again the foundations of government 
by the passage of "certain fundamentals." ' It was laid down 
that there was to be a free assembly every year, that the 
governor should not suspend or defer the signing of acts 
passed by the assembly, nor should the governor make war 
or raise any military force in the colony without consent 
of the representatives. The governor and council, which 
body now appears for the hrst time, were strictly forbidden 
to pass any laws or ordinances without the assembly, nor 
were they to prorogue or dissolve the assembly without its 
own consent. Further, the governor and council were not 
to levy taxes, and all officers of state or trust were to be 
appointed by and be accountable to the assembly. Xo treaty 
or alliance was to be made without the assembly, and no 
assembly was to grant any tax or custom for more than one 
year. Liberty of conscience was to be the right of all who 

'Smith, of>. cit., p. 126. 

* Jennings, TrutJi Rescued from Forgery and Falsehood, etc., (reprint, 
Philadelphia, iSSo), p. 47. 
'Smith, op. cit., pp. tJ^5-ic8. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN WEST JERSEY un- 

lived peaceably, and there was to be no religions test for 
office. 

Most of these matters had been covered by the Conces- 
sions and Agreements, and it is hard therefore to account 
for the conduct of the representatives in thus repassing 
them. It appears to have been considered, however, that a 
change in the constitution of the colony was being made, 
and that the consent of the inhabitants was necessary to 
give it vaHdity, for it is stated that upon the acceptance and 
performance of these new fundamentals by Jennings he will 
be received by the assembly, proprietors and freeholders of 
West Jersey as their governor.^ Such an idea was good 
Quakerism, but hardly good law. What would have re- 
sulted in case of the rejection of Jennings by the people 
can only be surmised, for the governor promptly signed the 
articles, and everything ran smoothly. The province was 
certainly much in need of legislation, for this first assembly 
passed no less than thirty-six acts. A number of these 
were repetitions of clauses of the Concessions. There were 
also acts further defining the duties of the govcnor and 
other officers.^ 

The assembly met again on April i, but adjourned to 
the 14th, and then agreed to dissolve.^ A new assembly 
came together on May 2d, and chose Thomas Olive as 
speaker.* Some important business was transacted, the act 
of most account being the division of the province into two 
judicial districts.^ This was the beginning of the over- 
throw of the system of tenths as administrative divisions. 
The council, commissioners and other officers were also 
elected in due form. With considerable regularity other 

'Smith, op. cit., p. 129. 

' Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions , pp. 426-437. 

'Smitli, op. cit., p. 151. 

'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 442. '■'Ibid., p. 448. 



Il8 THE FROVINCE OF NEiV JERSEY 

sessions of the assembly followed, and additional measures 
of importance were passed.^ It was decreed that the gov- 
ernor could not require the presence of the assembly or of 
any of its members anywhere without the consent of the 
house.' For the dispatch of business it was ordered that 
the governor and council should have the privilege of pre- 
paring bills for laws, which should be promulgated twenty 
days before the meeting of the assembly. The governor, 
council and assembly together were to constitute the gen- 
eral assembly, and a plurality of their votes was to decide 
all matters, the governor having a double vote.^ 

But the question as to where the legal right to govern 
the colony belonged had not been definitely settled. It be- 
comes apparent that for some reason a breach had come to 
exist between Byllinge and the other proprietors, and this 
tended to widen. Byllinge, to enforce his claim to the 
government, had decided to remove Jennings, who had 
given great satisfaction to the people, from the gov- 
ernorship.* Under these circumstances Penn advised 
the people of West Jersey to confirm the power of 
Jennings, and thus bring the matter to an issue. ^ Ac- 
cordingly, in the " third month," 1683, the assembly 
drew up a bold set of resolutions declaring that the 
land and government of West Jersey had originally been 
purchased together, that the Concessions and Agreements 
were still the law of the land, and that the assembly would 
stand by them. It was further decided that application 
be made to Byllinge personally to confirm his first agree- 
ment by signing and sealing a document to that effect which 

' Members from Salem appeared reg^ularly in the assembly after the 
adjustment between Fenwick and Penn. 
'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 462. 
'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., pp. 466-7. 
* Smith, op. cit.. p. 155. *Mulford. New Jersey, p. 242. 



POLITICAL CO\DiriONS IN WEST JERSEY hq 

was to be transmitted to him. Jennings, upon promising 
to conform to the law and to the Concessions and Agree- 
ments, was again formally elected governor.^ 

The assembly had taken a bold stand, and in its two fol- 
lowing sessions passed other resolutions and acts looking to 
the maintenance of its position.^ Finally, in 1684, Jen- 
nings and Thomas Budd were dispatched to England to ne- 
gotiate directly with Byllinge,^ and Thomas Olive was 
chosen governor in place of Jennings. But the mission of 
Jennings and Budd failed completely. According to the 
account of Jennings, Byllinge greeted the agents with 
threats, but could not move them until certain prominent 
Friends proposed that the matter be arbitrated. The agents 
replied that they had no authority to take such a step, but 
when it was urged that they might act on their own account, 
Budd closed with the proposition, and Jennings then reluc- 
tantly yielded.* Among those chosen to make the award 
was George Fox himself. The purport of the decision 
seems to have been that Byllinge was legally entitled to 
the government of West Jersey because of the Duke's 
conveyance, and could not legally sell or divide it among 
the proprietors. Still, as he had undoubtedly given the 
other proprietors reason to believe that they should share 
in the government, he ought to confimi the Concessions 
and otherwise secure the colonists from oppression. ° This 

'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., pp. 468-472. 

"^ Ibid., pp. 480, 483-4. ^ Ibid., pp. 485-7. 

* Jennings, Truth Rescued frmn Forgery and Falsehood. 

*What purports to be the award is given in a pamphlet entitled, " The 
Case Put and Decided by George Fox. . . . and other the most Ancient 
and Eminent Quakers between Edward Bylling on the one part and 
some West Jersians, headed by Samuel Jennings, on the other part." 
This appears to have been published in February, 1698-9, by John Tat- 
ham, Thomas Revell and Nathaniel Westland. Jennings declared that 
there were thirty-eight variations from the original award in their state- 
ment. 



I20 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

award seems to have settled the matter, though Jennings 
never gave up his opinion that the land and government of 
West Jersey had been purchased together from Lord 
Berkeley. 

Byllinge had previously named William Welch as deputy 
governor, and obedience had been refused by the colony. 
He now sent a fresh commission to John Skene as his 
deputy-governor.^ It is stated, however, that Byllinge con- 
sented to grant a " new charter " to West Jersey, although 
it contained no new liberties. But nothing definite is known 
as to its nature.^ 

The assembly in September, 1685, decided to recognize 
Skene's commission, though with a reservation of their 
" just privileges and rights." Any further action was 
avoided by an adjournment owing to the " sharpness of 
the season." ^ This collapse of the opposition in West 
Jersey is in strong contrast to the measures of violence so 
often seen in the sister province. Thus ended government 
under the Concessions and Agreements, and their carefully 
drawn provisions for the liberty of the people remain no 
more than indications of the political ideal of the Friends. 
Instead of a practically self-governing republic. West 
Jersey now approximated the form of an ordinary proprie- 
tary province, though with an elective council. 

But a curious condition of confusion followed the break- 
down of the opposition to Byllinge. The assembly did not 
meet again till 1692,* and during most of the interval prac- 
tically no general government seems to have existed. The 
only governmental power existing was exercised by the 
local governments and by the council of proprietors. Mean- 
while occurred the death of Byllinge, who had removed to 

» Smith, op. cit., p. 190. -Mulford, op. cit.. p. 246. 

'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 503. * Ibid., p. 507. 



POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN WEST JERSEY 121 

the province, and the purchase of all the interests of the de- 
ceased by the court physician, Dr. Daniel Coxe/ The lat- 
ter was very desirous of exercising full jurisdiction over 
West Jersey, and on September 5th, 1687, wrote to the 
council of proprietors, stating- that upon consultation with 
the highest legal authority he had been assured that, though 
the Concessions and Agreements might have been binding 
upon Byllinge, they in no way applied to himself. Further, 
he declared that his power of government was as absolute 
as that of Penn over Pennsylvania, that he had assumed 
the title of governor, and would exercise its duties with dili- 
gence. Coxe was willing to confirm all civil privileges 
granted by the Concessions and Agreements, but, as the 
government of England was universally esteemed the best in 
form, he intended to establish a system in the colony 
modeled after it." 

But before Coxe could carry out his ambitious schemes a 
stronger hand than his had seized control of colonial affairs, 
and West Jersey was added to King James' great province 
of New England with Sir Edmund Andros at its head. 
The colony, however, was little troubled by the presence of 
the viceroy, and the local authorities continued to manage 
their own affairs in peace. After the rule of Andros, the 
control of the province went back once more to its proprie- 
tors. But Coxe, disappointed by the opposition offered 
to his plans, had meanwhile sold out all but a small portion 
of his interests to the West Jersey Society, and in that body, 
therefore, according to the logic of events, rested the gov- 
ernmental power. The society was itself interested to the 
extent of two and a half proprieties in the affairs of East 

'Clement, Proceedings of the West Jersey Surveyors' Association, 
pp. 119-20. 
'Smith, op. cit., p. 190 (note k). 



122 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Jersey, and it naturally felt how 'beneficial the union of the 
two provinces under the same governor would be. There- 
fore, Andrew Hamilton, already chosen governor of East 
Jersey, was commissioned for West Jersey ^ as well, and the 
government by a governor, council and assembly was once 
more established. 

Col. Hamilton was occupied largely with the troublesome 
affairs of East Jersey, however, and not much was done in 
the sister province. When Hamilton was superseded by 
Basse in East Jersey, the same change took place in West 
Jersey,^ and in the latter province, as the former, Hamilton 
was restored in 1699. Factional spirit undoubtedly ran 
high in West Jersey between the supporters of Basse and 
Hamilton. As was shown in the last chapter, the contest 
also involved the interests of the West Jersey Society, as 
represented by Basse, as against those of the council of 
proprietors. The followers of Basse were strongly opposed 
to the Society of Friends, and indeed made efforts to rep- 
resent the contest as one between " Christians " and Quak- 
ers. Among the proprietors Jennings was undoubtedly the 
strongest leader, while prominent among the Bassites were 
John Tatham, Thomas Revell and Daniel Leeds. ^ But 
though feeling was bitter, there were no great disorders 
like the disturbances of 1699 in East Jersey. 

But the determination of the Crown to assume control of 
East Jersey naturally led to a similar decision regarding 
West Jersey. The two provinces were too closely united 
geographically to permit the maintenance of a separate 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 87. 

"^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 143-4 (and note). 

'Jennings, Truth Rescued from Forgery and Falsehood; The Case 
Put and Decided, etc. New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 208, 305, 479. 
502, 544. 



FOLITICAL CONDITIONS IN WEST JERSEY 



123 



proprietary government, with its greater laxity and lesser 
burdens in one of them, while the other was subject to 
royal government. Hence the proprietors of West Jersey 
were forced to include themselves in the surrender of 1702, 
and the Quaker province of " New West Jersey " came to 
an end. 



CHAPTER VIII 
Relations with the Duke of York and the Crown 

The study of the relations existing between the various 
proprietors of New Jersey, on the one hand, and James of 
York and the British Crown, on the other, is one of the most 
interesting topics connected with early New Jersey history. 
Unfortunately we have here time for only the briefest sketch 
of those events which tended to bring an end to the pro- 
prietary control of the colony. 

From the very beginning there was doubt as to the right 
of the proprietors of New Jersey to institute a separate 
government over their possessions, and it seems now rea- 
sonably certain that no governmental power was legally 
conveyed by the Duke of York to Berkeley and Carteret. 
The claim of Berkeley and Carteret is indeed plausible, as 
the Duke held the most full governmental control over 
his American possessions, and as the province was made 
over to them " in as full and ample a manner " as he him- 
self possessed it. But such argument, nevertheless, is not 
well founded in law. In the release to Berkeley and Car- 
teret New Jeresy is clearly defined as " a tract of land." 
The way in which the Duke held it is then said to be free 
and common socage, with a rent of forty beaver skins annu- 
ally. When it is said that this " tract of land " is given 
to Berkeley and Carteret in as " full and ample manner " 
as the Duke held it, it is clear that they also were to hold it 
in free and common socage subject to the same rent. It 
124 



RELATIONS WITH THE DUKE OF YORK 125 

is not reasonable to suppose that such a grant of govern- 
mental power as was claimed could have been conveyed 
in general terms such as these. Government was surely not 
an incident of the tenure, and, moreover, this is exactly 
the wording which was commonly used at the time in trans- 
fers of real estate. Nowhere else is there any mention of 
government. It is true that the power of government was 
not expressely reserved, but most assuredly it vVas not con- 
veyed to Berkeley and Carteret, and therefore must remain 
\\:ith the Duke. 

Even if the Duke had intended to convey the right of 
government, it is doubtful if he had the power to do so. 
The right to institute government was, according to Eng- 
lish law, a prerogative right inherent in the Crown which 
could only be conveyed to others than the king by his ex- 
press grant and patent. This was the principle which had 
held from the time of the quo-warrantos of Edward I, and 
though it may have been disregarded in some cases, it was 
nevertheless accepted in theory. The release of New Jersey 
was merely a private transaction between James and Ber- 
keley and Carteret, and the king had borne no part in it. 
In such a transaction a prerogative right could scarcely be 
conveyed. The case of New Hampshire shows that this was 
a real difficulty, for the claims of Mason and his heirs to 
governmental control had there to be given up for lack of 
the royal sanction. It is barely possible that, as the power 
of government was originally given to James, his " heirs and 
assigns," it might have been held that sanction was thus 
given to alienation on the part of James, for Berkeley and 
Carteret were of course his assigns. But this is doubtful, 
as " heirs and assigns " was merely a customary phrase, and 
would scarcely conceal so great a power. 

It therefore appears that James, in denying the right of 
the proprietors to institute a separate government at Eliza- 



126 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

bethtown, was not acting the part of an unprincipled tyrant/ 
but was merely, in a very cautious and moderate manner, 
enforcing his just authority. It seems apparent, however, 
that James did not at first understand the true bearings of 
the case. Berkeley and Carteret, on their part, never seem 
to have had a doubt as to their power; but by the issue of 
their Concessions and the dispatching of Philip Carteret 
to Elizabethtown, made the province of New Jersey an ac- 
complished fact before any measures of prevention could be 
worked out. 

The disadvantages of having two governments upon one 
harbor were, however, soon made apparent to James by 
Nicolls and Samuel Maverick.^ It may seem now rather 
strange that James did not therefore at once take advantage 
of the fact that governmental power was not conveyed in 
the deeds of lease and release to suppress the government 
of New Jersey. It is very evident, however, that he did 
not wish to offend Berkeley and Carteret. Probably, also, 
it was unsafe to do so, for we must remember that James 
was playing for high and doubtful stakes in England. He 
therefore preferred to wait for some favorable opportunity 
to make good his rights without prejudice to his political 
interests. This was good policy, but it apparently puts him 
in the wrong by making him seem to acquiesce in the acts 
of Berkeley and Carteret. 

New Jersey continued undisturbed till the Dutch recon- 
quest. But this reconquest had, according to the theory of 
the English law, much the same effect upon the powers of 
government as upon land. When the country was ceded 
back to England absolute control lay again in the Crown, 
and when the American territories were once more con- 

• Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 90. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol, i, pp. 46, 54, 57. 



RELATIONS IVITH THE DUKE OF YORK 



127 



veyed to James, the grant included the old sweeping powers 
of jurisdiction. Meanwhile Berkeley had sold his inter- 
ests in land and government alike to the Friends, Byllinge 
and Fenwick. Carteret, however, as we have seen, set out 
at once to obtain a renewal of his old grant, and was able 
to bring such influence to bear upon James that he was 
forced into a reconveyance of a part of the former province 
to the old Cavalier. But this new conveyance, like the 
old one, described New Jersey simply as " a tract of land," 
and made no mention of jurisdiction.^ At the same time 
experience must have shown how Carteret understood such 
a grant, and there seems no excuse for James or those who 
acted for him in not having the ambiguity cleared away. 

Meanwhile Andros had been commissioned as governor 
of New York and the Duke's other possessions. His com- 
mission, of course, covered New Jersey.^ But there is 
evidence that he received side instructions to " keep all 
things in the same posture (as to the Duke's prerogatives 
and profits) as they were in your predecessor's time." * 
He therefore did not interfere with the reestablishment of 
Carteret's government. But Andros insisted upon the right 
of the Duke's government to levy customs on vessels en- 
tering New Jersey. As Philip Carteret resisted, much 
trouble and irritation were caused.* With such half-way 
measures James was obliged to content himself for the time, 
as he dared not offend Sir George as things then stood. 
His secretary nevertheless wrote to Andros, " should his 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 161-167. 

* New York Colonial Documents , vol. iii, p. 215. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 179; New York Colonial Documents, 
vol. iii, p. 229. 

*■ New York Colonial Documents, \o\.'\v, ■p. 382; Learning and Spicer, 
Grants and Concessions, p. 131. 



128 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

(Carteret's) foot chance to slip those who succeed him must 
be content with less civility." ^ 

But the Quaker proprietors of West Jersey were not in 
the same position as Sir George, nor, indeed, did they have 
the claim to jurisdiction which arose from the regrant of 
New Jersey to the latter after the Dutch reoccupation. It 
seems strange that they should have even expected any re- 
cognition of their rights on the part of Andros. They cer- 
tainly received nothing but the most straightforward treat- 
ment at his hands. Fenwick, as we saw, came first and es- 
tablished himself at Salem, and resisted the duty which the 
Duke's garrison at Newcastle levied on all goods passing 
up the Delaware. He was therefore promptly arrested, sent 
to New York, tried and imprisoned upon refusing to give 
security for good behavior. Being released, however, he 
returned to Salem and once more proceeded to institute a 
government. He was then once more seized, and six com- 
missioners were appointed to act at Salem subject to the 
Duke's court at Newcastle." Thus the question of juris- 
diction over Salem was effectually settled in favor of 
Andros. 

Byllinge and his trustees met less violent but still similar 
treatment. When the commissioners sent over with their 
first expedition reached America, they found it advisable 
to visit Andros at New York, and were met by him with a 
flat refusal to recognize the claims of the Quakers to gov- 
ern West Jersey.^ This nearly led to the failure of the ex- 
pedition, but eventually the commissioners were allowed to 
take out warrants as subordinates of Andros,'* and upon this 

'Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 302 (note M). 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 186-204, 235-230, 278-285. 

* Smith, New Jersey, pp. 93-4. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 291. 



RELATIONS WITH THE DUKE OF YORK 



129 



basis the settlement of Burlington was made. It was un- 
derstood that the arrangement was to last until further 
advice could be had from England. iVndros meanwhile en- 
forced very rigidly the right to levy customs upon the Dela- 
ware, and. as \\'est Jersey became more populous, this bur- 
den caused continued complaint.^ The whole Quaker enter- 
prise was in the greatest peril, for in spite of the friend- 
ship between Penn and the Stuarts, there could be no en- 
sured asylum for Friends under the direct authority of the 
Crown of England. 

Led by Penn, the proprietors therefore at once addressed 
themselves to the Duke. But before anything could be 
settled came a change in the affairs of East Jersey. On 
January 14, 1679, Sir George Carteret died, and .\nflros. 
who probably had received private instructions to that ef- 
fect, soon afterward commanded Governor Philip Carteret 
to cease exercising any jurisdiction over the Duke's domin- 
ions unless he could show warrant. Carteret replied boldly, 
asserting his rights and declaring that he would defend 
them." .\ndros soon afterward journeyed to Elizabeth- 
town to assert his authority. Carteret, however, raised 
150 men, and though Andros was kindly received, he could 
accomplish nothing." But directly afterward Carteret was 
violently seized by a secret force sent from New York, 
conveyed there and imprisoned, awaiting trial. In spite of 
the efforts of Andros to browbeat the court, he was finally 
declared innocent of offense,* but was obliged to give 
security not to exercise authority in New Jersey till affairs 

'Smith, op. cif.. p. 116; New Jersey Archives, vol. i. p. 291. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i. pp. 294. 297. 
^ Ibid., vol. i, pp. 299-302, 314-5- 

* Whitehead, Eas/ Jersey under' the Proprietors, pp. 93-4. 109-111: 
Netv Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 303. 316 18. 



I30 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



were settled in England. Andros now appeared before the 
assembly of East Jersey, and asked that it adopt the laws 
then in force in New York. But the deputies refused 
compliance, declaring that not the king's letters patent, but 
Magna Charta was their rule and safety. They, however, 
presented their existing laws to Andros, who apparently 
did not object to them. Having appointed certain local 
officers, he then returned to New York.^ 

Thus the authority of the Duke had been asserted over 
the entire province of New Jersey. But the matter was not 
yet closed, for in England Penn was managing the Quakers' 
case with skill. Fortune, too, favored him, for this was 
just the time when James, threatened by the Exclusion Bill, 
was forced to retire to Scotland to avoid the outcry against 
him. He could ill afford to make more enemies, especially 
of such men as William Penn. The Duke was, indeed, only 
anxious to escape from all extra embarrassment, and event- 
ually ordered counsel to hear and make report of the case. 
Penn and his confederates presented such legal arguments 
as they were able, but put most stress upon the political 
side of the controversy. The levying of taxes upon the 
people of West Jersey without their consent was, they said, 
an abridgment of the rights of Englishmen. Here was the 
great opportunity for the Duke " to free the country with 
his own hand," and thus to show to the world that he was 
the friend rather than the opponent of free government.^ 

Such agreements meant little to James, but his situation 
was such that he dared not seem to resist them. As the only 
way out of the difficulty, he agreed to submit the whole 
matter to the decision of Sir William Jones, formerly 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 304-312; Learning and Spicer, 
Grants and Concessions , pp. 681-683. 

* Smith, New Jersey, pp. 117-124. 



RELATIONS WITH THE DUKE OF YORK 131 

attorney-general, but now one of his greatest opponents. 
After considering the matter, Sir William naturally decided 
against the Duke, both as to his right of government and as 
to his claim to levy customs, chiefly because jurisdiction had 
not been expressly reserved in the Grant of 1664 to Berkeley 
and Carteret.^ This was curious legal reasoning, but it was 
sufficient. James could no longer hold out, and forthwith, 
without even waiting for the advice of his own counsel, exe- 
cuted a deed making over both government and land to the 
Quakers.^ But curiously enough, while the land was made 
over to Byllinge and his trustees, the power of government 
was given to Byllinge alone. No adequate reason is known 
for this step. It may possibly have been done through care- 
lessness. But that it had important consequences in West 
Jersey we have already seen. 

Having thus surrendered his claims to control of West 
Jersey, James could not deny the demands made upon him 
with far more reason by Lady Elizabeth Carteret, the exe- 
cutrix of Sir George, to desist from his suppression of the 
government of East Jersey. Accordingly, James signed 
another instrument giving up all claim to that province as 
well.^ A little later also, after the sale of East Jersey to 
the Twenty-four, James executed a similar document con- 
ferring the government and land directly upon the new 
proprietors.* This ignored altogether the grant to Lady 
Elizabeth, and was unnecessary. But the Twenty-four, 
doubtless felt that it was safer to receive the power directly 
from the Duke.^ 

Thus the claims of the several proprietors of New Jersey, 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 323-4. 

''Ibid., vol. i, p. 324. 

^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 337. *Ibid., vol. i, p. 383. 

''New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. 329. 



132 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



however faulty they may originally have been, were appar- 
ently made good. It is true that the old principle that 
jurisdiction could not be alienated by a mesne lord without 
the royal sanction, still rendered the transfer of doubtful 
legality. But there is no evidence that James intended to 
take advantage of such a technicality. However, the danger 
to the proprietors was by no means passed. James was 
playing for the throne of England, and once seated upon it 
he would be in a position to brush aside anything that stood 
in the way of his interests. He now understood the disad- 
vantages of the existence of the Jerseys as proprietary gov- 
ernments, and might be relied upon to override whatever 
prevented their overthrow. 

But temporarily there was an end of serious trouble. 
Brockholst, who was serving at New York in the absence 
of Andros, hesitated to permit the resumption of Carteret's 
government even after the facts of the Duke's release were 
known. ^ He did not, nevertheless, interfere by force, and 
Carteret once more assumed control. But the greater free- 
dom of the government of the Jerseys continued to cause 
discontent among the people of New York, and their greater 
commercial freedom was a menace to the prosperity of 
James' colony. This was especially true after the Twenty- 
four undertook to establish at Perth Amboy a free port 
which should rival and surpass New York. This danger 
was clearly seen by Dongan. James' new governor, who not 
only warned his superiors directly,- but later persuaded the 
authorities of New York City to draw up a memorial pray- 
ing that the Jerse}'s be reunited to New York.^ Aroused 
by liis re]")resentations, the Scotch proprietors of East Jersey 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 351. 

'' Nezv York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. 429. 

^ Ibitl.. vol. iii, p. 361. 



RELATIONS WITH THE DUKE OF YORK 



^?>Z 



wrote to Dongan directly, remonstrating with him upon his 
course.^ But Dongan in reply declared that he was in duty 
bound to represent the truth to his master.- He continued, 
whenever he touched upon the subject, to inform his su- 
periors of the disadvantages arising from East Jersey.'' 

The Twenty-four adopted a conciliatory course. Gov- 
ernor Lawrie was instructed to do all he could to promote 
harmony, and especially to discourage the removal of set- 
tlers from New \'ork to Xew Jersey.^ Lawrie faithfully 
followed his instructions, allowing William Dyre, the col- 
lector of customs at New York, to discharge his office also 
over East Jersey.'' But it was by this very concession that 
the proprietors overreached themselves, for the turbulent 
population of East Jersey was little inclined to submit to the 
charges of the hated customs officer. Soon Dyre was 
driven to complain to the Commissioners of Customs at 
London that he was absolutely unable to carry out his or- 
ders in East Jersey, for " when he prosecuted vessels, the 
juries found their verdicts against the most undoubted 
facts." « 

These complaints arrived in London just at the right 
time. James Stuart was now on the throne. Monmouth 
and Argyle had been crushed, and the king was free to ap- 
ply to the colonies that plan of centralization which he had 
so long cherished. He was already involved in his con- 
troversy with New England, and the smuggling of East 
Jersey was a good pretext to include that province also in 
his schemes. Accordingly, the Committee of Plantations 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 463. 

"^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii. p. 353- 

^Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 356, 392. 

*■ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 426. "Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 142. 

'Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, p. 143. 



134 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



recommended that quo warranto proceedings be instituted 
against East Jersey, West Jersey and Delaware, on the 
ground that it was for divers reasons prejudicial " that such 
independent governments be kept up and maintained with- 
out a nearer and more immediate dependence on your 
Majesty." ^ West Jersey was nearly innocent of ofifense, 
but it was a good opportunity to attack all three colonies 
at once. James was, of course, very ready to accept the 
recommendations of the Plantation Committee, and when 
he ordered Sir Robert Sawyer, his Attorney General, to 
introduce quo warranto proceedings against Rhode Island 
and Connecticut, he gave him additional charge to include 
both East and West Jersey if he thought it necessary. 
Nothing, however, was done at once. But eventually, in 
May, 1687, James ordered that the quo warrantos be 
pushed, especially against New Jersey, Maryland and the 
Carolinas. 

The proprietors of East Jersey made such resistance as 
they could. They presented a petition complaining of the 
encroachments of New York, setting forth the expense they 
had been at without return, and arguing that East Jersey 
should not be held responsible for customs laws instituted 
at New York. They asked the king, if he thought a 
change necessary, to appoint one of the proprietors gov- 
ernor of both East and West Jersey, and finally requested 
a special customs collector for Perth Amboy." But, though 
the last request was granted,^ nothing else was gained. 
Meanwhile Andros had been knighted, and sent over as 
gfovernor of New England. It became evident that resist- 
ance was useless, and the proprietors of East Jersey there- 
fore determined to make a voluntary surrender of their gov- 

*■ New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. 362. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii. pp. 533-S3Q- * Ibid., vol. iii, p. 540. 



fc. 



RELATIONS WITH THE DUKE OF YORK 133 

ernment, with the stipulation that their rights to land be 
respected. The surrender was therefore promptly effected. 
April, 1688. The owners of West Jersey, whose case was 
exactly similar, joined in the transaction, and the quo 
warranto proceedings were of course discontinued. Andros 
was commissioned governor of the new royal province,^ and 
in August he visited the Jerseys and took over the govern- 
ments. There was no demonstration of any kind, and at 
least a part of the people seemed well content with the 
change. 

The brief rule of Andros offers little of significance. He 
was personally engaged elsewhere, and though Andrew 
Hamilton continued to rule East Jersey several months as 
his subordinate, the province was eventually left to the care 
of its local governments." Upon the overthrow of Andros 
there was no disturbance, despite the proximity of East 
Jersey to New York, and the inhabitants appear to have 
been entirely willing to remain in stahi quo. 

As the governmental powers of the proprietors had not 
been destroyed by the quo zvarrantos of James, the revolu- 
tion led, as we have seen, to a resumption of the proprietary 
governments. The resumption was naturally followed for 
a time by the cessation of those difficulties with the crown 
which had formed such important incidents in New Jersey 
history. William was far less interested in these colonies 
than James, and knew far less about their affairs. This 
condition could not, however, endure long. In 1694 the 
assembly of East Jersey authorized the establishment of a 
customs house at Perth Amboy, and required all vessels 

^ New York Colonial Docutnents, vol. iii, p. 537- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. ZT, Whitehead, East Jersey under 
the Proprietors , p. 160. 



136 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



coming to East Jersey to enter there first/ The exporta- 
tion of pipe-staves, shingles and plank, except to " places 
beyond the sea," was also forbidden. Governor Fletcher 
grumbled at these measures,* and continued to force vessels 
coming to New Jersey to pay New York customs.^ 

Under Bellomont, however, the old vexatious customs 
question was reopened in earnest.* The proprietors of 
East Jersey had meanwhile obtained further legal opinion 
that no duties could be levied upon them,^ and forthwith 
presented petitions to the Lords Commissioners of the 
Treasury, the Lords Justices, and the Lords of Trade,*"' 
asking that their right to free ports be established. In 
these representations some of the proprietors of West 
Jersey joined. But the law officers of the crown, when 
consulted, held that the Duke of York had himself never 
held the right of appointing ports, and hence could not 
convey it to Berkeley and Carteret.^ On February 23, 
1698, Bellomont therefore received an order from the 
Crown commanding him to enforce the rights of New 
York.® Governor Basse violently resisted this attack." and 
proceeded to put a cargo into the sloop " Hester," then ly- 
ing at Perth Amboy, a craft of which he was part owner. 
But Bellomont, sending a force, seized the vessel, and as 
Basse refused to pay duty,^'' she was condemned. The East 
Jersey assembly supported Basse by an appropriation,^^ and 

' Learning and Spicer, Gra?its and Concessions, pp. 342, 343. 

* New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, p. 114. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 132. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 237. ''Ibid., vol. ii, p. 136. 

^Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 164, 169, 171. ''Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 177, 231. 

* Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 218, 220. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 227, 238. ^'^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 245. 

" Learning and Spicer, Grants and ConcessioJis, p. 376. 



RELATIONS WITH THE DUKE OF YORK 137 

legal proceedings were begun which, as usual, spun out over 
several years. But at length the Court of King's Bench 
gave definite decision in favor of Basse. He was awarded 
ample damages, and the right of the Jerseys to free ports 
was at length assured.^ 

The issue was too late, however, to be of much benefit. 
There had been long-continued complaints against the 
Jerseys, with other proprietary jurisdictions, as centers of 
illegal trade and harborers of pirates.- The disorders aris- 
ing out of the quit-rent troubles had now reduced the pro- 
prietors' government to impotence and contempt, and the 
Crown, as a matter of vital necessity, had already deter- 
mined to bring their rights to a trial.'' William's lawyers 
in their advice had brought prominently forward the argu- 
ment that powers of government could not be conveyed by 
a mesne lord without the royal sanction, and there is no 
doubt that their ground was well taken. But only a few 
of the proprietors wished to resist. The majority, led by 
the West Jersey Society and Lewis Morris, who visited 
England for the purpose of carrying the matter through, 
wished only to secure a definite guarantee of their 
right to the soil and such other privileges as could 
be obtained. They saw that the government of East 
Jersey was beyond their power, and that conditional 
surrender was the best course. From July, 1699, to April, 
T702, the negotiations were continued, but at length the 
proprietors of the two Jerseys, convinced that their rights 
would be respected, were induced to waive their claims 
and consent to an unconditional surrender of governmental 

^ Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. ii. p. 341; Whitehead, East Jersey undet 
the Proprietors , p. 206. 
^ Nezt Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 122, 178, 291, 360, etc. 
^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 370. 



138 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

power. With such dispatch as the clumsy nature of the 
proprietorship admitted, the necessary forms were carried 
out. Thus the inevitable result was at length worked out, 
and New Jersey was at last a Royal Province. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 100. 

*Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 404, 412, 415. ^ Ibid. vol. ii, pp. 452, 461. 



CHAPTER IX 

The Royal Governors 

During the negotiations which led to the surrender of the 
government of the Jerseys to the crown, the major part of 
the proprietors made an effort to have Andrew Hamilton, 
who had struggled so efficiently in their cause, commis- 
sioned as royal governor/ The appointment was, how- 
ever, actively opposed by William Dockwra, Peter Sonmans, 
and the minority interest.^ In this opposition they were 
supported by Edward Randolph, Surveyor General of the 
Customs, and by Col. Robert Quary,^ and the Lords of 
Trade eventually recommended that some one unconnected 
with the divisions and disorders of the province should be 
appointed." Accordingly, Edward, Lord Cornbury, who 
had already been commissioned as governor of New York, 
was named as the first royal governor of the united province 
of New Jersey.' This practice of appointing the same per- 
son governor of New York and the Jerseys was continued 
until 1738, and whatever its other results, it certainly placed 
New Jersey under the oversight of men of more prominence 
and reputation than could otherwise have been the case. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 408, 469. 475- 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 430. 432, 466, 470. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 479. 481. * Ibid., vol. ii, p. 484. 

* Lewis Morris later affirmed that after the rejection of Hamilton, he 
himself was about to be appointed but that the intentions of the crown 
were diverted by Cornbury's superior influence; New Jersey Archives, 
vol. V, p. 320. 

139 



I40 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



But though the reasons for the rejection of the able and 
experienced HamiUon were well grounded, the new appoint- 
ment proved to be of such a nature as to reveal the very 
worst features of the English colonial system. Lord Corn- 
bury was a nobleman of illustrious descent and the highest 
family connections. He was the grandson of the Earl of 
Clarendon, the great minister of Charles II, and thus the 
cousin of Queen Anne herself. But in almost every other 
quality needed for the office he was totally deficient, and 
the sole reason for his nomination appears to have been the 
strength of his family influence, together with the fact 
that he had ingratiated himself with the Whig govern- 
ment by being among the first officers of the royal army 
to desert James II in 1688.^ According to the statement 
of an able and well-informed though strongly biased colon- 
ial historian, he had since that event distinguished himself 
chiefly by the extravagance of his living, which had run 
him so deeply into debt that he was forced to leave Eng- 
land to avoid his hungry creditors." 

Cornbury's career in America certainly lends color to 
these assertions, for not only did he fail utterly to show the 
smallest political sagacity, but he made it evident that his 
own pecuniary profit was the chief aim of his administra- 
tion, and by stooping to the most ill-concealed bribery, for- 
feited the confidence of all but his companions in corrup- 
tion. Even his zeal for the Church and his attempts to 
cloak his misconduct by appeals to militant patriotism fail to 
blind the investigator to the real character of the man. 
The typical black-sheep of an illustrious house, his career 
in the colonies must stand as a reproach against the sys- 
tem which could give such a man such wide power. 

' Smith, New Jersey, p. 275; Smith. Hisfory of the Late Province of 
New York (New York, 1830), vol. i, p. 169. 
'Smith, Nerv YorI<, vol. i, pp. 169, 190, 193. 



THE ROYAL GOVERNORS 



141 



Nor was his public life alone reprehensible, lor the mad 
pranks of his private life contributed almost equally in 
arousing the contempt of his subjects.' His debts also 
continued to accumulate, so that when, after repeated com- 
plaints, he was at length removed from office he was at 
once arrested by the sheriff of New York upon the just de- 
mands of his creditors, and remained in prison until, upon 
the death of his father, he became Earl of Clarendon, and 
was thus enabled to return to England.* It would be too 
much to assert that the feeling of suspicion with which the 
inhabitants of New Jersey undeniably regarded their royal 
governors was based upon the unfortunate conduct of Corn- 
bury, but there is abundant evidence that the feeling of dis- 
trust was greatly intensified by the career of New Jersey's 
first royal executive.' 

Cornbury's successor. John Lord Lovelace, though also 
a member of the nobility, was apparently a man of quite 
different stamp. His early death, however, prevented him 
from making any deep impression upon the colony. He 
was advanced to the governorship of New York and the 
Jerseys from the office of cornet in her majesty's Horse 
Guards, and was received in the Jerseys with every mark 
of respect. I^ovelace certainly won the love of all with 
whom he came in contact during his brief administration, 
and left a favorable impression behind him, though this 
easy conquest was due partly, no, doubt, to the deep feel- 
ing of relief at the departure of Cornbury.^ 

Col. Richard Tngoldsby. however, who as lieutenant- 
governor ruled the colony during the period from the death 
of Lovelace to the commissioning of Hunter, revived the 

'Smith, New York, vol. i, p. 194. 'Ibid., vol. i. p. 193. 

^ E. g., Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 242, 363. 
* Smith, New York, vol. i, p. 194. 



142 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

feeling of distrust with which the governorship had been re- 
garded under Cornbury. Ingoldsby was well known in the 
Jerseys, for he had been prominent in the affairs of New 
York since 1691. He is a good example of a class fre- 
quently to be met with in the colonial politics of the period. 
Born of good family in England, Ingoldsby appears first 
in New York as captain of a company of troops sent to the 
province at the time of Leisler's Rebellion. Owing to his 
position, he played a rather striking part during the Leis- 
lerian troubles, and indeed conducted the administration of 
New York for a short time after the death of Governor 
Sloughter.^ But he incurred the hatred of the Leislerian 
party, and shared in the downfall of the Anti-Leislerian 
faction upon the appointment of Lord Bellomont as gov- 
ernor of New York. Bellomont showed his dislike of In- 
goldsby plainly in his correspondence, terming him " a rash, 
indiscreet man," and declaring that he showed " unpardon- 
able neglect " in absenting himself from his duty.^ That 
Bellomont had grounds for his attitude is clear from the 
fact that Ingoldsby was endeavoring to have himself com- 
missioned as Bellomont's successor in New York, and had 
made a journey to England for the purpose. Ingoldsby 
did not have sufficient influence, however, to secure his ob- 
ject. Instead of obtaining the governorship he was named 
as lieutenant-governor of New York under Cornbury, and 
later was given a similar commission for New Jersey. 

By Cornbury he was regarded with suspicion, and on at 
least one occasion sharply reprimanded.^ As a result his 
commission as lieutenant-governor of New York was or- 

' Smith, op.cit., vol. i, p. 120; Brodhead, New York, vol. ii, pp.630, 
646. 
^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, p. 760. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 68. 



THE ROYAL GOVERNORS 



143 



dered revoked by the home authorities/ But there is no 
evidence that, even in his opposition to the detested Com- 
bury, Ingoldsby received any popular support or sympathy.^ 
Upon the death of Lovelace, Ingoldsby assumed the exe- 
cutive office in New Jersey. Yet, though interest is given 
to his rule by the events which occurred in it, he gave no 
proof of ability or sympathy with the people of the colony, 
and apparently justified the assertion of Smith, that he was 
naturally " a heavy man." ^ In his measures he met op- 
position almost as violent as Cornbury himself, and there 
was the same feeling that he was seeking only his own inter- 
est rather than the welfare of the colony. Ingoldsby 
withdrew from New Jersey before the arrival of his suc- 
cessor, and probably returned to England. Nothing 
further is known of his career.* 

But all the royal governors of New Jersey were not of 
the stamp of Cornbury and Ingoldsby. Few, if any, colon- 
ial governors equalled Robert Hunter in tact or political 
skill. Little is known of his early life except that he was of 
Scotch birth, and had at one time been apprenticed to an 
apothecary. But his correspondence clearly shows that he 
had either had a good education or else had improved his 
own powers with great ability. Changing his occupation, 
he entered the army, and by 1707 had risen to a colonelcy. 
In addition to other creditable service, he fought at Blen- 
heim. Hunter appears meanwhile to have become well 
known in the leading English society of the day, and en- 
joyed the acquaintance of such men as Addison, Steele and 
Swift. Through the influence of Addison he had, as early 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 145, 146. But see ibid., vol. iii, 
p. 469. 
"^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 371. 'Smith, New York, vol. i, p. 197. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 290 (note 2). 



144 '^^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

as 1705, been appointed lieutenant-governor of Virginia, 
but had the misfortune to be captured by the French while 
on his way to the province. After being detained for some 
time in Paris, he was at length released, and again, through 
the support of Addison, was commissioned governor of 
New York and New Jersey.^ 

From the very first the new governor made a favorable im- 
pression, and by his consummate ability succeeded in quiet- 
ing the discontents which had done so much to destroy the 
prosperity of the Jerseys. Possessed of all the shrewdness 
and tact of his race, and actuated by a real desire to further 
the best interests of his provinces, Hunter found the colon- 
ists ready to repose confidence in him and listen to his 
wishes. Many of the leading men of the Jerseys became 
his close friends, as is shown by the correspondence which 
was kept up between them after he had withdrawn from 
the province." 

It is true that Hunter was not without some of the weak- 
nesses of his nationality and time. " He had a ready art 
of procuring money, few loved it more." This is said to 
have led him into schemes, games, and considerable losses." 
Whatever his faults may have been, however, they were not 
of a nature to interfere with his public usefulness. He pos- 
sessed the engaging address of a gentleman, and was a 
churchman, though he did not place much stress upon con- 
formity in others. 

In 1720 Hunter, on account of his health, exchanged posi- 
tions with William Burnet, son of the celebrated bishop, and 

' Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, p. 
147; New Jersey Archives, vol. iv. p. 11 (note): Dictionary of Xational 
Biography; Smith, New Vorky vol. i, p. 205. 

* Smith, Nezv York, vol. i, p. -?35. 

* Smith, Ne7i' Jersey, p. 413. 



THE ROYAL GOVERNORS I45 

returned to England to till the position in tlie customs 
which the latter had occupied. In 1727, however, he was 
appointed governor of Jamaica and returned to America. 
Yet he never again visited the Jerseys, and finally died in 
1734. Hunter stands out as the best type of the colonial 
governor. If the home authorities had been wise enough 
to send many men of his calibre to America, the results 
would have been far-reaching. 

His successor, William Burnet, although differing in 
many respects from Hunter, was also possessed of many of 
the qualities necessary for a successful governor. Great 
care had been spent by his father upon his early education, 
and his scholastic training had been supplemented by travel 
and association with distinguished men. Although it is 
said that in his youth he was rather slow intellectually, he 
appears later to have convinced himself, at least, that his 
scholarship was of a high order. At any rate his love for 
intellectual things was real, and much of his small income 
went for the purchase of rare and valuable books. As was 
not unnatural, he became especially interested in theology, 
and while acting as governor employed his spare time in 
writing a curious theological essay which was published 
anonymously in London. But though his own views of re- 
ligion, as befitted the son of the great Bishop of Salisbury, 
were broad and tolerant, he was little inclined to tolerate 
those who did not agree with his opinions, and chose his 
friends from those who were in sympathy with his beliefs. 

Burnet was large personally, and had frank manners and 
a dignified demeanor, which evidently enabled him to im- 
press most of those whom he met. Yet, in spite of his 
scholarly qualities, he was gay and condescending. More- 
over, he did not make that affectation of pomp which was 
a hindrance to so many governors, but mingled in colonial 



146 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

society freely and in a friendly spirit. Burnet devoted him- 
self especially to the ladies, and was much admired by them.^ 

Yet, in spite of his many good qualities, he was not at 
bottom the equal of the able man who preceded him. In 
tact, in knowledge of men, and in political skill Hunter was 
greatly his superior. He also differed in disposition and tem- 
perament from Hunter, and was unable to include within 
his circle of friends some prominent men who had been the 
sturdy supporters of the latter. Burnet never succeeded 
in keeping his own personality in the background while at 
the same time obtaining all his ends as Hunter had done, 
while that sterling good sense which had so characterized 
the other Scotchman was sometimes lacking to Burnet. 

Burnet, however, had the advantage of the friendship 
and advice of Hunter, and was thus able to avoid some 
errors at the beginning of his administration." He was, 
also, able to commence his work at a time when party strife 
had been to a great extent quieted. Upon the whole, his 
rule was successful, and he lost little of the ground which 
Hunter had gained. At last, owing to the opposition of 
certain commercial interests in New York, he was trans- 
ferred to the governorship of Massachusetts, and thus 
passes from our field of study. His later career is familiar 
to all students of colonial history. 

Burnet was succeeded by another Scotchman, John Mont- 
gomerie. Montgomerie had served in the army, but had be- 
come better known as a courtier, having acted as governor 
of the bedchamber of George I before he became king. His 
influence at court probably secured his appointment, as he 
seems to have been a man of little force, though of a kindly 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, p. 
156; New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. I (note); Smith, New York, vol. i, 
pp. 247, 281. 

'Smith, New York, vol. i, p. 248. 



THE ROYAL GOVERNORS 



147 



and peaceable disposition. He is remembered largely be- 
cause of the amount of household equipment he brought 
with him to America to support his new dignity. On the 
whole, affairs moved quietly during his rule, but his work 
was cut short by death after he had been in the colony only 
a little over two years. ^ 

The appointment of his successor was peculiar, as William 
Cosby, a naval officer, had already been governor of the 
island of Minorca, and had been charged with maladminis- 
tration in office there." During his short career in America 
he certainly displayed greed, lack of tact and even high- 
handed tyranny. Those qualities were shown by him, how- 
ever, chiefly in his administration of New York.^ New 
Jersey, though suspicious of his intentions, suffered little 
direct harm from him. His death came as a welcome 
relief to both colonies. Cosby was the last governor to 
rule both New Jersey and New York. Much to the delight 
of the smaller colony, she was at length granted a separate 
executive, and Lewis Morris, her own most prominent pub- 
lic man, received the commission. 

Our brief survey of the character of the early royal 
governors of New Jersey shows clearly that the bitter con- 
flicts between the executive and the legislature of the colony 
depended in a large degree upon the character and ability 
of the governors. When men of tact and fairmindedness, 
like Hunter and Burnet, held commissions, English control 
worked smoothly and satisfactorily. The lack of judgment 
displayed by the Board of Trade in sending men like Corn- 
bury and Cosby to rule prosperous colonies, for reasons 
for the most part discreditable, must remain as one of the 
chief causes of antagonism to the home government. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v. p. 185 (note); Smith, op. cit., vol. i, 
pp. 281, 288. 
'Smith, op. cit., vol. ii, p. i. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 30. 



CHAPTER X 

Legal Position of the Governor as Executive 

The position of the royal governors of New Jersey dur- 
ing the Union Period did not in its legal aspects differ ma- 
terially from that of the chief executives of other royal pro- 
vinces. The commissions of the governors, published upon 
their entering on office, were in a certain sense the constitu- 
tion of the province, for they were the only official written 
documents the binding force of which was generally recog- 
nized. The commission of Cornbury, by which royal gov- 
ernment was first established, gave to that worthy gentle- 
man the usual sweeping executive power. After stating 
briefly that the disorders of the province had led the pro- 
prietors to surrender their powers of government to the 
crown, it proclaimed Cornbury captain-general and gov- 
ernor-in-chief of both East and West Jersey. He was di- 
rected to rule according to his commission and instructions, 
and also according to such reasonable laws as should be 
made by him with the advice and consent of the council 
and assembly. After publishing his commission, he was 
to take the usual oaths, and was then to administer them 
to the lieutenant-governor and the members of the council. 
The sections immediately following, however, deal with the 
governor's relations with the council and assembly, and can 
be best considered in discussing the organization and work 
of these bodies. Cornbury was to keep the seal of the pro- 
vince and act as chancellor. Moreover, at his discretion, 
he could administer the oaths appointed by act of Parliament 
148 



LEGAL POSITION OF THE GO PERNOR 



149 



to be taken instead of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy 
to all and every person residing in or passing through New 
Jersey.^ 

The sweeping power to establish all necessary courts to 
determine all cases, criminal and civil, in both law and 
equity, follows. Judges, commissioners of oyer and ter- 
miner, if necessary; justices of the peace, and such other 
officers as might be required for the better administration 
of justice and for putting the laws into execution, were like- 
wise to be appointed by the governor. His wide control 
over the judicial system was increased by the power to re- 
prieve until the royal pleasure was known, except in cases of 
treason and willful murder. - 

In ecclesiastical affairs the governor was given the power 
to collate to benefices.' 

But the commission, as usual, is more detailed and specific 
when the military side of the governor's work is taken up, 
Cornbury had the right to muster and command all inhabi- 
tants of the province, and to withstand all enemies both by 
land and sea. He could transport such forces into other 
provinces for defense, and could authorize pursuit of enemies 
either within or without the colony. He could execute mar- 
tial law in time of insurrection or war and do all pertaining 
to the place of captain-general. Likewise he might erect 
fortifications and grant commissions to masters of ships to 
execute martial law at sea in time of war. But this power 
was not to extend in any way to the royal navy.* 

Lastly, all moneys raised by any act were to be issued 
only on warrant from Cornbury, with the consent of the 
council, and were to be disposed of only for the support of 
the public service and not otherwise. The governor was 

* New Jersey Archives , vol. ii, pp. 489-495. ^ /did., vol. u, pp. 495-6. 
'Ibid., vol. ii, p. 496. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 496-9. 



I50 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

also given authority to appoint fairs, marts, and markets, 
as well as ports and harbors, but only by consent of his 
council.^ 

Such was the executive work of the governor as set forth 
in the commission of 1702. Subsequent commissions dur- 
ing the entire period of the union with New York merely 
repeated its provisions with some verbal modifications. As 
far as published authority from the British crown is con- 
cerned, no important change in the duties and position of 
the chief executive appears. 

In examining the actual position of the governor, how- 
ever, more weight attaches to the instructions given by the 
home government than to the sweeping general clauses of 
the commissions. In the detailed paragraphs of the various 
sets of instructions may be traced some changes in the ways 
in which the governors were expected to carry out their 
powers. It must be remembered, however, that the instruc- 
tions represent only the ideas of the home government. 
They were absolutely binding, indeed, upon the royal ap- 
pointees, but their binding force, while generally acquiesced 
in, was never admitted as absolute by all of the colonists. 
The instructions were moreover supposed to be secret. 
Lewis Morris, however, obtained a copy of Cornbury's 
articles, a fact very embarrassing to that worthy executive;'" 
and throughout the period the nature of the commands 
given seems to have been often understood in a general 
way by the provincial leaders." 

The instructions given to Cornbury in 1702 consist of 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 499. 

* Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 2, 74. 

'The later governors stated many of the articles to the assembly; 
e- g'. New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 430; Asseviily Journal, March 
15. 31. 1722. etc. 



l^EGAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR i^I 

[03 articles, dealing with the whole field of administration 
likely to need his attention and action. Most of the instruc- 
tions are specific in character, and it is therefore rather 
difiicult to formulate any general description of their pro- 
visions. Many of the articles deal with the work of the 
governor in legislation and in other fields, which we shall 
consider separately. We must, nevertheless, try to gain 
some idea of the character of those relating more speci- 
fically to administration. 

In the first place the instructions directed Cornbury to 
carry out the provisions of his commission. For the better 
so doing he was to impart to his council so many of the in- 
structions wherein their advice and consent were needed, 
and also as many more as he might deem advantageous. 
In all things Cornbury was to avoid sharing in the 
parties of the province, and was to use impartiality and 
moderation. All officers appointed by him were to be of 
good life and well affected to the government.* Cornbury 
himself was forbidden to come to Europe without special 
permission from the crown, and, if he absented himself from 
New York and New Jersey, one " full moiety " of the salary 
and emoluments of his post were to go to the person left 
in charge. - 

After the articles relative to his more strictly legislative 
work came the instructions regarding the governor's finan- 
cial powers. He was not to permit the levying of any 
money for which there was not to be accountability to the 
treasury department in England. Full books were to be 
kept of all accounts, and these were to be sent, attested 
under oath, every half year to the lord high treasurer or the 
commissioners of the treasury and to the board of trade. 
Every sum disposed of was to be specified. No money was 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. it, pp. 508-9. '^ Thid.. vol. ii, p. 514. 



152 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY . 

to be paid out except by the governor's warrant on advice 
of the council, but the assembly were to have the right to 
examine all accounts of expenditures disposed of under 
laws made by them/ Cornbury was not to remit any fines 
or forfeitures over ten pounds, nor dispose of any such until 
directed so to do by the home government, but meanwhile 
he might suspend such fines." 

The exercise of the governor's judicial powers were also 
prescribed in some detail. In spite of the authority given 
by his commission, he was not to erect any court or office 
of judicature not previously existing without order from the 
crown, and a list of those already existing was to be sent 
home with all speed. With the council, Cornbury was to 
regulate all salaries and fees, but these were to be in mod- 
eration. That there might be no extravagance, the fees 
were to be hung up where they were to be charged, and lists 
were to be sent to the board of trade. ^ No man's goods 
were to be taken, except by laws as nearly as possible like 
those of England, and no judge, justice or similar officer 
was to be removed without good cause signified to the 
crown and board of trade. To prevent arbitrary removals, 
the commissions of judges and justices, granted with the 
consent of the council, were to be unlimited as to time. 
Cornbury himself was not to execute any such office or al- 
low any one else to execute them by deputy.* 

Though religious questions can scarcely be said to have 
occupied much of the governor's attention, his instructions 
minutely covered this field. There was to be perfect liberty 
of conscience to all, except Papists, who did not disturb the 
peace, and he was to see that an act was passed allowing 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 514-515. 'Ibid., vol. ii, p. Si6. 
^Ihid., vol. ii, pp. 520-1. * Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 518-9. 



LEGAL POSITIOX OF THE GOVERNOR 153 

the declaration of Quakers to stand for an oath. Quakers 
were to be admitted to places of trust upon signing the 
usual declarations instead of the oaths. ^ Religion was to be 
encouraged, and care was to be taken that the Prayer book 
be read and the sacrament administered according to the 
Church of England. Cornbury was to promote the building of 
churches and the maintenance of orthodox ministers. En- 
couragement was to be given to the jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of London. Collation to benefices, the granting of 
marriage licenses and the probate of wills were reserved 
to the governor, but no minister was to be accepted with- 
out a certificate from the bishop. If any occasioned scandal, 
he was to be removed, and no one not having proper orders 
was to preach in an orthodox church.- With the aid of the 
council and assembly the governor was to find the best 
means of converting the Indians and negroes. "'' 

Military matters naturally received careful attention in 
the instructions. Cornbury was to see to it that the in- 
habitants were properly armed and trained in military exer- 
cises, but such training was not to interfere needlessly 
with the people, and no articles of war or other law martial 
was to be enforced except by the advice of the council.* To 
prevent abuse, Cornbury was given the right to impress 
men for the royal navy, and the high admiral was in- 
structed that captains should be ordered to call upon the 
governor for the men they required instead of impressing 
them for themselves.'' The governor was likewise to make 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 522-3. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 528-9. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 532. 

*The governor did not have, however, the power to execute martial 
law in time of peace. For the preservation of discipline in the militia 
an act of assembly was required. 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 523-5. 



154 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

a report of the fortifications existing in the province, as well 
as of what additional ones were needed/ Cornbury was 
to encourage the Indians to the English trade rather than 
that with any other nation, but he was to appoint proper 
officers in portions of the colony bordering on the Indians 
who might raise men to oppose them in case of sudden in- 
vasion. In case any colony, especially New York, needed 
assistance, he was to see that it was furnished according to 
the quotas which had already been prepared in England.- 

The important subject of trade was of course not ne- 
glected. The governor was to use his best endeavors to 
promote trade, but was to take all means to enforce the 
acts of trade and navigation. Constant protection was to 
be given to all officers of the customs. Cornbury was to 
see to it that entries were made at all ports of all imports 
and exports, as well as of all vessels entering. These en- 
tries were to be forwarded yearly to England. To prevent 
losses from the French, all vessels were to leave New Jersey 
either in fleets or under convoy.^ Cornbury was also or- 
dered to encourage the Royal African Company, and to 
prevent illegal trade with any part of Africa under its 
charter. He was to submit a yearly account of all negroes 
supplied and at what rates. The home government was 
also to be kept informed of the chief products of the colony 
and its chief wants in the way of trade.* Reference to 
piracy recalls at once to the mind of the student the cir- 
cumstances of the period. All goods piratically seized were 
ordered to be taken and held subject to the disposal of the 
crown, while, in accordance with a commission already sent 
him as governor of New York for the trying of pirates in 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 526. * Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 532-3- 

* Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 526-7. * Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 530-1. 



LEGAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR 



155 



these parts, Cornbury was to take steps for their suppression 
pursuant to act of Parliament.^ 

An important part of the instructions related to the 
dealings between the royal government and the proprie- 
tors, who, it must be remembered, had surrendered upon 
the understanding that the royal officers should be in- 
structed to respect their rights over the land. The 
governor was ordered to secure the passage of an act 
confirming the lands of the province to the proprie- 
tors and those who had purchased under them. Their 
quit-rents were to be secured, and all other privileges 
granted them by James of York, except the right of gov- 
ernment. /\11 private lands properly held were to be con- 
firmed under such conditions as should tend to their most 
speedy improvement. But Cornbury was not to consent 
to any act taxing unprofitable land. None but the proprie- 
tors were to buy lands of the Indians, and Cornbury was 
to permit the surveyors of the proprietors to carry on their 
work and to allow and assist the agents appointed to collect 
the quit-rents, provided they took the customary oaths of 
allegiance to the crown. He was to see, however, that all 
lands purchased were cultivated." 

As to efforts to spread intellectual enlightenment among 
the provincials little is said in the instructions except that 
no one was to be permitted to have a printing press without 
a license, and no book was to be published without leave 
first obtained."" 

Real effort is noticeable to secure for the home govern- 
ment proper information regarding the colony and the con- 
duct of the government. A map of the plantations and a 
list of all officers under the government and of all public 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 520. 

''Ibid., vol. ii. pp. 517-518. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 534. 



156 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

charges was to be submitted as soon as possible.^ The 
secretary of the colony was to be directed to prepare copies 
of all acts or public orders which were to be forwarded to 
the crown and board of trade. If the secretary did not do 
so he was to forfeit his place." A full account of the in- 
habitants was to be at once transmitted to England, and 
each year a record of increase or decrease of population 
was to be sent. The governor was further to keep a record 
of all born, :hristened or buried.^ 

If any matter arose not covered by the instructions, Corn- 
bury was to take action temporarily, with the advice of the 
council, but was to send word with all due speed to the 
home authorities.* He was, moreover, to maintain cor- 
respondence with one of the principal secretaries of state 
and with the board of trade as to the condition of affairs 
in the province.^ It was also required that Cornbury ex- 
amine the work of all the patent officers of the crown and 
report to the board. He might suspend any patentee or 
deputy, though he must not fill such office except tem- 
porarily.* 

Such is a brief summary of the more important points 
included in the instructions, with the exception of those 
dealing directly with the governor's work in legislation and 
those relating to the structure and functions of the courts. 
These parts of the governor's duties will be considered sep- 
arately. It must not be forgotten, however, that they con- 
stituted two of his most important fields of action. 

There were certain ways, however, in which the position 
of the governor might be altered during his administration. 
The letters received from the board of trade and other au- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 518. "Ibid., vol. ii, p. 516. 

^Ibid., vol. ii, p. 523. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 534. 

^Ibid., vol. ii. p. 535. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 519. 



LEGAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR 157 

thorities at home gave advice regarding his conduct which 
he was bound, practically at any rate, to obey. This cor- 
respondence, however, related nearly always to matters of 
policy rather than of power. Most of the letters dealt with 
the governor's attitude toward the legislature of the pro- 
vince, with the confirmation and disallowance of provincial 
acts by the crown, and with grievances presented by sub- 
jects. But from time to time, as circumstances demanded, 
additional instructions were issued to the governor, which 
limited him in just the same way as the original articles. 
These additional instructions also sometimes had to do with 
the governor's legislative functions, but that was by no 
means always the case. 

The first additional instructions received by Cornbury 
bore date of April 20, 1705.^ The first paragraphs referred 
to the qualifications of representatives in the assembly, but 
it was then ordered that as soon as proper provisions should 
have been made for the support of the government, either 
the governor or the lieutenant-governor should reside con- 
stantly in the province. This provision led to the station- 
ing of Ingoldsby permanently at Burlington.^ Lastly, it 
was ordered that no fees should be granted or taken by any 
provincial officer for grants of land made by the proprietors 
or their agents. In May, 1707, another instruction was 
given ^ providing for the administration of the province in 
case of Cornbury 's death or absence, if there should be no 
lieutenant-governor. The original articles had ordered that 
in such case the council should assume the administration, 
with the eldest councillor presiding, but it was now declared, 
because of disputes arising in other provinces from the 

^ JVezi; Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 96. 

*Ibid., vol. iii, p. 181. ^ Ibid., vol. iii. p. 769. 



158 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

former rule, that the eldest councillor who was named first 
and who should be at the time residing in the province 
should assume the administration until the governor re- 
turn or the lords' pleasure be further known. 

The home authorities evidently believed that the troubles 
of Lord Cornbury's administration were not due to defects 
in the governor's legal position, for when that worthy exe- 
cutive was at length recalled in 1708 and Lord Lovelace 
commissioned as his successor, no very radical changes in 
the instructions appear/ The chief alterations were natur- 
ally in the articles dealing with the assembly and the gov- 
ernor's relations with it. The only important article 
omitted was that requiring the executive to see that mer- 
chant vessels should leave New Jersey only in fleets or under 
convoy. But there were naturally, owing to the war, sev- 
eral additions to the instructions upon military affairs. 
Lovelace was to take care that valuable information was 
not obtained by the French through the capture of merchant 
vessels bound from the colony.^ The governor was also 
to hinder by all means possible secret correspondence with 
the French in the West Indies which was known to have 
been carried on during " the late war." All vessels com- 
missioned by Lovelace were henceforth to fly a flag, the 
form of which was given, inasmuch as certain captains 
claiming to act under commission from colonial governors 
had brought dishonor on the royal service by committing 
irregularities while flying colors like those of the navy. 
Other additional articles referred to the work of the courts. 
It should be stated, however, that in a communication to 
Lovelace of January, 1708, the lords of trade rejected the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 316. 

* See Circular Letter from the Lords of Trade to the Governors of 
Plantations, New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 60. 



LEGAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR 159 

interpretation that Cornbury had put on several of his in- 
structions and warned the new executive against following 
his example/ 

During the brief administration of Lovelace no additional 
instructions were sent. As for Ingoldsby, who followed 
him as lieutenant-governor, the home authorities, upon in- 
vestigation, revoked his commission in October, 1709." and 
did not even deign to correspond with him regarding New 
Jersey affairs except to convey their order that he quit the 
administration at once. 

The instructions of Governor Hunter must be regarded 
as representing the more mature opinions of the home au- 
thorities relative to New Jersey, as the numerous com- 
plaints from and the party struggles in the colony had in- 
volved many of the points covered. They, however, repeat 
with only a few verbal modifications those of Lovelace. 
Several articles were indeed added, but they concerned the 
execution of trade laws and regulations passed for the en- 
tire colonial system, and bore no special relation to New 
Jersey.^ During the successful administration of Hunter 
no important additional instructions were sent. 

When William Burnet was commissioned in 1720, his 
instructions were similar to those of Lovelace and Hunter.* 
He, however, later received a number of additional articles 
relating to new questions of colonial politics which were 
forcing themselves upon the attention of the home govern- 
ment. In September, 1720, he was ordered not to assent 
to the issue of bills of credit unless the act contained a 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 323. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 474- 

^Ibid., vol. iv, p. I. The Lords also wrote Hunter a letter practi- 
cally identical with that sent Lovelace at the beginning of his adminis- 
tration. Ibid., vol. iv, p. 2. 
^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 3. 



l6o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

clause providing that it should not take effect till approved 
by the crown. But exception was made of acts for sup- 
port of the government/ In 1721 there was an instruction 
relative to church affairs ^ which, as we shall see, had caused 
trouble to Hunter. Whereas the governor's previous in- 
structions had commanded that he should not prefer to a 
benefice any clergyman who had not a certificate from the 
Bishop of London or some other bishop, he was now in- 
structed to prefer only such as were certified by the Bishop 
of London. 

The next year there was a lengthy additional instruction 
resulting from the information that a large trade was carried 
on secretly from the East Indies directly with America.^ 
Burnet was ordered to execute most strictly the acts of 
Parliament dealing with such illegal trade. The penalty 
for neglect was immediate removal and a fine of £1000, 
with the King's highest displeasure. All vessels illegally 
bringing negroes or East Indian goods were to be required 
to leave the jurisdiction at once. If a vessel belonging to 
persons in New Jersey brought in such goods or bartered 
or sold them, it was to be seized. If any customs officer 
was remiss Burnet was to suspend him immediately. He 
was also required to transmit from time to time an account 
of his proceedings to the home government. 

In 1723 there was still another additional instruction re- 
lative to the approval of private acts by the governor,* and 
a little later another changing the manner of electing rep- 
resentatives for the assembly.^ In July, 1726, an import- 
ant instruction was sent relative to the suspension of sen- 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 4. 

'^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 23. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 46. 

*/btd., vol. V, p. 71. ^Ibid., vol. v, p. 84. 



LEGAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR i6i 

tences in cases of appeal to the crown. ^ It had formerly 
been the rule that execution of sentence be not suspended 
pending appeals. But this had caused great harm, as some- 
times those appealing were ruined before the Crown's pleas- 
ure could be known. Now it was ordered that there should 
be suspension of sentence unless the appellee gave ample 
security to make full restitution of all that the appellant may 
have lost in case judgment be reversed. In i/2j, upon 
petition of the Bishop of London, an additional instruction 
for all colonial governors was ordered, commanding them 
to enforce the laws against vice and to encourage schools.^ 

The instructions given to Montgomerie show some re- 
arranerement of articles, as well as several additions.^ The 
additional instructions given to Burnet were of course in- 
cluded. The changes related in part to legislation and the 
composition of the council and general assembly. Several 
new instructions related to judicial matters. Montgomerie 
was not to remit any fines or forfeitures over £io. 
He might, however, suspend the payment of larger sums 
until he had communicated with the home government. In 
addition, he was not to dispose of forfeitures or escheats 
until the sheriff or other proper officer had made inquiry by 
a jury upon their oaths into their true value. As there 
had been complaint about the proceedings of the courts,* 
Montgomerie was to observe great care that their duties 
were properly performed, and no person was henceforth to 
be sent as a prisoner to England unless sufficient proof of 
his crime was sent with him.'* 

As the customs officers and the surveyor-general of cus- 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives , vol. v. pp. 122, 157. 
*Ibid., vol. V, p. 159. ^ Ibid., vol. v, pp. 169, 171. 

*It does not appear that these related to New Jersey especially. 
^Ibid., vol. V, pp. 174-176. 



1 62 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

toms had complained that they were hindered by being 
obliged to serve on juries and in the mihtia, Montgomerie 
was to see that such abuse ceased. Further, in case, owing 
to the great distances, the surveyor-general did not promptly 
appoint officers of the customs, the governor was to make 
temporary appointments that there be no intermission of 
the service. But Montgomerie was not under any pretense 
to interfere with the powers of the surveyor-general of the 
customs.^ 

As there had been irregularities in the granting of com- 
missions to private ships of war, Montgomerie was to 
govern himself strictly by the commissions and instructions 
granted such vessels in England. Further, he was not 
to grant letters of marque or reprisal against any state in 
amity with England, without special command. Store- 
houses were forthwith to be provided throughout the pro- 
vince for keeping arms, ammunition and other public stores.^ 

A part of Burnet's instructions relating to the trial of 
accessories in cases of piracy was omitted, since it had been 
covered by act of Parliament.^ 

The sole additional instruction, sent to Montgomerie in 
1730, ordered him to support the commission which had 
given the Bishop of London and his commissaries ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction over the colonies.* During the brief rule 
of Cosby there were no further developments which need 
occupy our attention here. 

Upon the whole, though some important alterations in 
detail had been made since Cornbury's time, the chief execu- 
tive powers certainly remained, as far as the instructions 
from the home government go, essentially unimpaired. The 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 176. 

^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 178. ^ Ibid., vol. v. p. 170. 

^Ibid., vol. V, pp. 264-265. 



LEGAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR 163 

only important lines of change were in requiring the gov- 
ernor to give more attention to the acts of trade and in 
compelling him to prevent unwarranted issues of bills of 
credit. 

There was. however, another way in which the executive 
powers of the governor might be changed and limited. 
This was through the passage of acts by the colonial legis- 
lature controlling matters covered by the commission and 
instructions of the chief executive. The efforts of the as- 
sembly to usurp in this way the powers of the governor 
gave rise to several conflicts between the departments of the 
government. Since these conflicts form one of the most in- 
teresting and instructive parts of the political history of the 
province, we shall reserve them for separate consideration. 
It may be well in this place, however, to indicate to what 
extent, as a result, the powers of the executive were re- 
stricted. 

It must be noted at the beginning that, in spite of the fierce 
political quarrels in New Jersey, the attacks upon the gov- 
ernor's executive power as such were not as bitter or as con- 
tinuous as in some other provinces, nor was that power in 
the end so greatly limited. Further, there was a tendency 
on the part of the wiser executives, like Hunter and Burnet, 
not to object seriously to the passage of legislative acts regu- 
lating executive functions when no vital matter was at 
stake. ^ It seems evident as well that upon several such 
questions both departments in New Jersey were satisfied 
to follow the precedents set by more powerful neighboring 
colonies." 

*Both allowed the passage of acts indirectly reducing fees. 
' Notably in the matter of the accountability of the treasurer and with 
regard to the exclusive right of the representatives to initiate money 

bills. 



l64 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Of all the functions assigned to the governor, perhaps it 
was his power over the courts which was most frequently 
attacked. But, though the assembly did succeed in forc- 
ing the governor to comply with its desires regarding the 
judicial system, it was not able to limit his powers by law 
to any considerable extent. Several acts regulating court 
procedure were carried, notably laws preventing corrup- 
tion,^ malicious prosecution by information,'^ and multipli- 
city of law suits.^ But acts for shortening law suits and 
for regulating the practice of the law,* though twice passed, 
were disallowed by the home government. The assembly 
never succeeded in prescribing the organization of the courts 
or their place of sessions, though it greatly coveted the 
right. ° The same result came from efforts to limit the 
legal court fees. Laws regulating fees, even though pur- 
porting merely to supplement and enforce the governors' 
ordinances, were disallowed by the crown in 1721 and 1735." 

The governor's control over the militia was never seri- 
ously threatened, although, owing to the tyrannical use 
made by Cornbury and his clique of their powers, the Third 
Assembly refused to pass an act for disciplining the forces, 
and thus virtually dissolved the militia.^ The governor's 
ecclesiastical powers, since they did not give rise to serious 
controversy, were never questioned, nor were his powers 
over trade. 

The financial control of the executive, on the other hand, 

" March, 1713-14; Allinson, Acts of the General Assetnbly of the 
Province of New Jersey. 

^Ibid. 'May, 1722; ibid. 

* March, 1713-14, disallowed Jan. 20, 1721; Feb., 1727-8, disallowed 
Nov. 25, 1 731. 

^ Assetnbly Jourtial, Oct. 16, 29, 1723. 

•Allinson, Statutes; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 240, 515. 

^ Assembly Journal, May 12, 1708. 



LEGAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR 165 

was another center of dispute. This came about, however, 
largely because Cornbury disobeyed at least the spirit of 
his instructions in refusing to the assembly the right to 
examine in a proper way the receiver-general's accounts.' 
The legislation upon this field virtually substituted treas- 
urers responsible to the legislature, and with duties limited 
by law, for the official originally intended to be the rep- 
resentative of the English Treasury Board. But by allow- 
ing these treasurers to be nominally appointed by the gov- 
ernor, and to keep the title and status of receivers-general, 
the assembly did not encroach theoretically upon the powers 
of the executive. 

Our general conclusion must therefore be that, legally 
considered, the limitation of the executive power during 
the Union Period was not great. Montgomerie and Cosby, 
theoretically, possessed the same rights as Cornbury and 
Lovelace. Unfortunately for the royal governors, how- 
ever, the legal possession of power and the ability to exer- 
cise it practically are not the same thing. To understand 
to what extent they differed in New Jersey we must now 
turn our attention to the efforts of the governors to apply 
their executive powers in actual government. 

^ Assembly Journal. May 14. 1707. 



CHAPTER XI 

The Executive Power in Practical Operation 

In its actual workings the executive power in New Jersey 
was, during the period from 1702 to 1738, different in 
some important respects from that in the other provinces. 
This difference was the result of the fact that the governor 
of New Jersey was at the same time governor of New 
York. The latter province, as larger and more exposed to 
attacks from both Indians and French, necessarily occupied 
the greater part of his time and attention. During the 
Union Period no governor of New Jersey ever resided in 
the province for any considerable length of time; and the 
only prolonged visits of the executive were during the sessions 
of the assembly, held alternately at Perth Amboy and Bur- 
lington.^ Even the journey to Burlington was regarded by 
Cornbury as a hardship, and was not relished by the other 
governors. In addition to these visits, the governors made 
occasional trips, usually to Amboy, but sometimes to Ber- 
gen and other towns in the neighborhood of New York, 
in order to hold meetings of the council when special neces- 
sity required. But in spite of these visits, the chief execu- 
tive was not usually on the soil of New Jersey, Cornbury 
at one time not entering the province for nine months.^ 

'Hunter and Burnet, however, maintained houses in Perth Amboy; 
Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, p. 153 
et seq. Burnet in his last meeting with the Assembly recommended 
that the Province maintain a house for the governor. But the Assem- 
bly would not spend the money, Nerv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 342. 

'* Ibid., vol. iii, p. 243. 
166 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER ^dy 

The governors regularly resided in New York, which was, 
to be sure, within an easy journey of the chief towns of 
East Jersey, and during the eighteenth century communi- 
cation by mail was always possible/ It was, however, a 
real hardship for the people of West Jersey, especially of the 
remoter counties like Salem and Cape May, to apply to them 
personally.^ 

Perhaps more important than this mere absence from the 
soil was the fact that the governor had to give so much of 
his time and attention to the affairs of New York.^ He 
was absent on long visits to the frontiers, and the admin- 
istration of so large a province, and one where political 
factions were so bitter, was in itself a sufficient task for all 
but the ablest executives. Moreover, the governor's closest 
friends and associates were usually residents of New York,* 
and not infrequently were they named to places of trust 
and profit in the sister colony in which they had little at 
stake.'^ It was also unfortunate that some of the most dis- 
tinguished men of New Jersey, notably Lewis Morris and 
James Alexander, possessed large interests in New York, 
and took an active part in the politics of that colony. Thus 
the interests of New Jersey were imperiled on at least one 
occasion," because of contentions and quarrels which ori- 
ginally bore no relation to her affairs. When we consider 
the bitterness of the party strife in the Jerseys and its pecu- 
liarly complicated character, the unwisdom of the executive 
union becomes the more clear. The situation in New Jersey 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. i8i. ^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 244. 

^Ibid., vol. V, p. 299. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 453. 

*Fauconnier, Jamison and Byerly are instances. Morris, Alexander, 
Johnstone and Mompesson were also residents of New York for a large 
part of the time. 

•During the rule of Cosby. 



1 68 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

demanded the entire attention of an able statesman. The 
home government, though undoubtedly not intentionally un- 
just to the Jerseys, must certainly bear the blame for its 
shortsightedness. 

Under these conditions, the honesty and efficiency of the 
administration depended in .a great degree upon the men 
named by the crown and by the governor to subordinate 
executive offices, for their work could not have the same 
oversight as in provinces where the governor was person- 
ally present.^ During entire years New Jersey was prac- 
tically without government, except that of the judges, 
sheriffs, and justices of the peace. 

Under Lord Cornbury nothing could be much worse; 
corruption ruled, and the sole object of the chief executive 
and many of his subordinates was personal profit and ad- 
vantage. Cornbury and the clique which surrounded him 
were the better enabled to carry out their schemes because 
of the fierce party struggles going on in the province. In 
East Jersey they found the proprietary interests in violent 
conflict with the anti-proprietary element among the set- 
tlers, which took its stand upon the Elizabethtown purchase 
and the Nicolls grants.^ Among the proprietors themselves 
there was the bitter struggle between the majority sharehold- 
ers, representing mainly the Scotch purchasers, who now 
made Perth Amboy their headquarters, and a very energetic 
and unscrupulous minority styling themselves the " English 
Proprietors," led by Dockwra and Peter Sonmans. In 
West Jersey the conflict was perhaps not quite so bitter. 
The Quaker proprietors represented in the council of pro- 
prietors were in general accord with the West Jersey So- 
ciety and its agent. But Col. Daniel Coxe, son of the 
physician who had once claimed to be sole proprietor, was 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 299. '^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 14. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 1 69 

the determined foe of the controlling element, and an anti- 
Quaker political party had already developed.^ 

Cornbury began operations by receiving a tip of £200 
from the Perth Amboy group, even before he pub- 
lished his commission.- It took him, or perhaps it would 
be more correct to say his advisers, some little time, how- 
ever, before they thoroughly understood the situation and 
how to make use of it. A new executive was naturally 
much influenced by the council, and in this body Lewis 
Morris and Samuel Jennings were prominent, although it 
also contained several strong opponents of the leading 
proprietors. 

Under the influence of Morris and his supporters, Corn- 
bury seems to have commenced his actual administration re- 
spectably enough, although his suspicion of the Quakers was 
at once apparent. When he administered the oaths to his 
council, Jennings, Davenport, and Deacon refused to swear, 
and demanded that they be allowed the lawful afiirmation 
instead. But Cornbury, although his instructions were 
positive and direct upon the point, hesitated to permit this 
until the Quakers themselves bade him examine his instruc- 
tions further. He was then obliged to qualify them under 
the 53d article. The governor, however, was enraged at 
this proof that the proprietors, through Lewis Morris, had 
obtained a copy of his instructions. In his first official 
letter to the lords of trade he complained of this fact, and 
also remonstrated with the home government about em- 
ploying the Quakers further in places of trust. He rep- 
resented that it was unnecessary, as a sufficient number of 
persons were properly qualified who were not Quakers, and 
the latter would always oppose a militia act.''' 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 479; vol. ii, p. 15. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 207. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 2 et seq. 



I70 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



Nevertheless, the earlier appointments of the governor 
gave no special offence. He named Roger Mompesson, a 
London lawyer of experience and ability, who had recently 
arrived in America, as chief justice/ William Pinhorne, 
the proprietor of Mount Pinhorne, was second judge,^ and 
Alex. Griffith, whose true character had not yet been shown, 
was attorney-general/ Peter Fauconnier, a Huguenot mer- 
chant of New York, was receiver-general.* Richard 
Townley '* and Coxe ^ became colonels of the militia of 
East and West Jersey respectively. None of these officers 
except Coxe had played a leading part in Jersey affairs, 
though he was, of course, an opponent of the leading pro- 
prietors. On the other hand, Thomas Gordon, the Scotch 
proprietor, was high sheriff of East Jersey,^ and Cornbury 
recognized and supported the appointments of John Barclay 
as receiver of the proprietors' quit ^ rents in East Jersey, 
and of Thomas Gordon as their register. Basse, distinctly 
a dangerous man under the circumstances, had received the 
patent from the crown as provincial secretary, "^ but for this 
mistake at least Cornbury was not responsible. His lord- 
ship did adopt the questionable policy of naming the mem- 
bers of his council as associate provincial judges and as 
judges of the pleas in the counties.^" Even the Friend, 
Samuel Jennings, was named as judge in Burlington 
County." But in his appointments of sheriffs and justices, 

^ Liber AAA of Counnissions, pp. 23, 40. ''Ibid., pp. 23, 41. 

'Griffith held a patent for this office. Aezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, 
p. 302. 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 37. ^Ibid., p. 2. 

* Ibid., p. 6. "^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 15. 
^^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 31. 

* Ibid., p. 20; Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 26. 
^'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 69, 150. 

'^^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 12; Thomas Revell was soon named 
in his place. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 171 

the g-overnor at first certainly recog^nized both parties. 
Cornbury also sanctioned the efforts of the missionary 
clergymen, Brook at Elizabethtown and Amboy/ and 
Moore, who had begun work in 1705, at Burlington and 
elsewhere in West Jersey." 

The opening of the new atlniinistration was even marked 
by one really noteworthy achievement, for Cornbury's judi- 
ciary ordinance, while fully in accordance with his instruc- 
tions to continue the existing courts of the province, reor- 
ganized them with excellent judgment, as will be more fully 
explained in the chapter on the judicial system, and thus 
laid the basis for an effective system of courts. There can 
be little doubt that Mompesson was the real author of this 
commendable work."* 

But with such a man as Cornbury at the head of affairs, 
no continuously good administration was possible. Pro- 
vincial politicians were never in doubt as to his true char- 
acter," while, on the other hand, his habits made him the 
subject of popular contempt. His appointees soon showed 
that they were willing to be parties to, if not indeed actu- 
ally the instigators of, the governor's corrupt acts. Mom- 
pesson and Pinhorne allowed themselves to become mere 
tools of his tyranny, while Ingoldsby, Basse, Griffith, and 
Fauconnier appear in an even worse light. Even Coxe, 
doubtless the ablest of them all, did not hesitate to make use 
of the governor for his own interest. Thus the governor 
was surrounded by a corrupt ring, the practices of which 
were, to say the least, more shameless than those of un- 
scrupulous modern politicians. 

'Whitehead, Contribulious to the Early History of Perth Auiboy. 
p. 212. 
'Hills, History of the Church in Burlingioti (Trenton, 1878), p. 64. 
•Field, Provificial Courts of New Jersey , p. 50 and appendix C. p. 256. 
* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 207. 



172 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

This " ring " was virtually the governor's council, for all 
the persons mentioned either originally were or became 
members of that body except Fauconnier, Griffith, and 
Basse, and the latter was its secretary. Certain other coun- 
cilors, notabl}'' Peter Sonmans, and Col. Richard Townley, 
were also leading members of Cornbury's clique; but his 
opponents were soon forced from the council and all other 
posts of trust. Lewis Morris was suspended,^ and only 
saved from removal by his influence with the home govern- 
ment,^ while Jenninngs voluntarily resigned.^ Thus the 
government of New Jersey, like that of so many provinces, 
was virtually monopolized by a small group of favorites of 
the governor, who shielded each other in their corrupt prac- 
tices. It is a little curious to note that Col. Quary, the sur- 
veyor-general of Her Majesty's customs, was in the main a 
supporter of the " ring." * Though a rather subservient 
official, Quary bore the reputation of being both zealous and 
upright.'"' 

Difficulty began when it became apparent to Cornbury, 
during the sessions of the First Assembly, that the proprie- 
tors and their supporters, who were in the majority, were 
not willing to make a sufficiently large appropriation. 
Meanwhile Coxe and the anti-proprietary leaders had ad- 
dressed themselves to the governor through Col. Quary,® 
and the strongest circumstantial evidence goes to show that 
a " deal " was agreed upon whereby the anti-proprietary 
party were to choose men for the next assembly who would 

'iWrf' Jersey Arclm<es, vol. iii, p. T; . 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 124, 154. Morris made no submission to Corn- 
bury and did not resume his place in the Council till the accession of 
Lovelace. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 160, 224, 235. "^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 61. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, p. 50. ''Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 16, 37. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



^7Z 



" effectually answer all the ends of Government," while 
Cornbury was to prevent the enforcement of the claims of 
the proprietors over Elizabethtown, and to support the 
" English Proprietors " against the Perth Amboy group 
and Coxe against the Quakers. As a part of this states- 
manlike transaction, a fund, referred to commonly as the 
" Blind Tax," was raised by the anti-proprietary party in 
East Jersey as a bribe to Cornbury. This " Blind Tax " 
was raised through numerous comparatively small contri- 
butions by certain of the inhabitants of Middletown, Eliza- 
bethtown, and even of the other towns, and the proceeding 
was so ill-concealed that the proprietary supporters had 
little difficulty later in laying bare the whole proceeding. 
The actual collecting .seems to have been done chieHy by 
Richard Salter and John Bowne, of Monmouth.' 

This agreement bore the most immediate fruit, not only 
in the dissolution of the first assembly and the securing 
of an anti-proprietary majority in the second by the most 
unjust interference on the part of Cornbury,^ but also in 
the use of the strictly executive power of the governor. We 
must note first of all. however, that the " deal " into which 
Cornbury had entered was in itself the most outrageous vio- 
lation of his instructions, which directly commanded him 
to keep aloof from parties and to secure the confirmation 
of the rights of the proprietors.^ 

It was after the conclusion of his alliance with the anti- 
proprietary party that the governor suspended Morris from 
the council for disobedience, and forced Jennings to resign. 
He did not stop, however, with this deposition of the lead- 
ers. The supporters of the proprietors were also excluded 

^ A^ew Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 198-219. Some of those contribu- 
ting may not have known for what purpose the fund was to be used. 
*lbid., vol. iii, p. 88. ''Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 508, 517. 



174 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

from the commissions of the peace, from the office of 
sheriff, and from command in the mihtia. Their places 
were supphed with tools of the council, several of whom 
were unfit and corrupt. Among the " scandalous persons " 
of whom complaint was especially made were Richard 
Salter, the collector of the " Blind Tax," who was appointed 
a justice of the peace for Monmouth;^ Thomas Rilling"- 
worth, a judge in Salem County," and William Fisher, 
sheriff of Burlington/'' It was claimed that the latter at 
least was named by Cornbury contrary to the advice of his 
council,* though the lords of trade upheld his right to do 
this.^ In one instance also complaint was made that a 
sheriff was named only three days before election, and that 
in consequence many of the electors had no notice as to who 
was sheriff or when the election was to be held.^ 

The control of the courts was carried out with the same 
low motives. Indeed, of all the maladministration of Corn- 
bury 's time, that of the judiciary was perhaps the most 
shameless.' The Supreme Court, under the subservient 
Mompesson and Pinhorne, was occupied largely with prose- 
cutions against persons who had opposed or spoken con- 
temptuously of the government. When grand juries re- 
fused to indict such persons, as was apparently always the 
case, informations were filed by " that vile fellow Griffith," ** 
and the victims tried under these. Yet, owing to the brave 
stand of the juries, only in one case was a verdict of guilty 
found, and that was because the accused, one Pomphrey, 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 15. 

'^Ibid., p. 34. '^ Ibid., p. 29. 

^ Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 93, 152, 156. 

'^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 118. ''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 87. 

'' Minnies of the Supreme Court, passim. 

* Ne7v Jersey Archives, vol. iv. p. 209. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



175 



produced no witnesses and had no counsel.^ The court did 
not dare to sentence even him. Yet the court endeavored to 
punish the enemies of Cornbury without obtaining verdicts. 
Persons were compelled to attend session after session be- 
fore being brought to trial, and when acquitted after trials 
upon information, were compelled to pay costs." Attorneys 
also found it so dangerous to act against the government 
that eventually no one could be found to defend an accused 
person.^ Another abuse was the refusing of appeals upon 
properly drawn writs, notably in the case of Peter Blacks- 
field, of Salem County, a matter for some time regarded 
as an especial public grievance.* 

The most notorious single case was, however, that of 
Thomas Gordon, who was arrested for refusing to obey 
Cornbury 's order to deliver the proprietary records to Secre- 
tary Basse. For this offence he was suspended from prac- 
ticing as an attorney, and twice brought before the Supreme 
Court, only to be discharged. Immediately after the session 
of the assembly which had chosen him speaker to carry on 
the brave work of Jennings, he was arbitrarily imprisoned 
for fifteen days, and refuserl the writ of habeas corpus by 
Judge Pinhorne, and even after his final release he was not 
restored the right to practice. This injustice was the more 
inexcusable because of the part which Gordon had played 
in the political struggle against the governor.'^ 

The lower courts were naturally guilty of similar pro- 
ceedings, as they were largely conducted by the same per- 
sons. In all the courts there were numerous complaints 
of the charging of unjust and excessive fees.^ 

'Field, Provincial Courts of A'ezv Jersey, p. 56. 

* New Jersey Arc/iires, vol. iv, p. 41. 

* Minutes of the Supreme Court (i 704-1715), p. 49. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv. p. 41, vol. xiii, p. 472. 
''Ibid., vol. iv. pp. 74-77. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 175. 



176 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

It is, indeed, probable that the opponents of Cornbnry 
and his clique represented their proceedings in the worst 
colors, and their charges may not have always been true in 
detail. But there is no reasonable room for doubt that the 
maladministration of the courts was essentially as charged.^ 
Hunter, at any rate, was convinced of this, and he certainly 
was in a position to pass judgment. So high did the feel- 
ing run against those concerned in the corrupt proceedings, 
that, upon the removal of Cornbury, efforts immediately be- 
gan to secure justice against his tools. Basse and Sonmans 
were actually indicted for perjury, forgery, illegal handling 
of juries, and other crimes. But the death of Lovelace and 
the accession of Ingoldsby prevented them from being 
brought to justice.^ 

Cornbury himself had some direct share in the unjust 
proceedings of the courts, as on several occasions he actually 
presided over the Supreme Court, probably in imitation of 
the king sitting in King's Bench. ^ It was also asserted 
that in two cases he caused the sentence of persons convicted 
of willful murder to be suspended indefinitely without re- 
ferring the matter to the crown. Thus he practically 
usurped the pardoning power in such cases, in direct opposi- 
tion to his instructions.* 

Cornbury and his satellites made pretense of great zeal 
in the exercise of their control over the military system. 
Energy in this department was indeed highly proper, as a 
great war with France was raging, and New York was di- 
rectly exposed to attacks. New Jersey, however, was a par- 
ticularly unmilitary province, partly because she was pro- 

' Field, op. cit., p. 56. 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), pp. 75, 8c-i. 

'Field, op. cit., p. 52 (note). 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 174, 181, 245, 326. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER I77 

tected by New York from direct attacks, and partly because 
of the large Quaker and Dutch elements in her population. 
In his very first letter to the lords of trade, Cornbury stated 
that he had " settled " the militia of West Jersey and begun 
on that of the Eastern Division,^ but this apparently meant 
little more than the appointment of officers. Almost im- 
mediately thereafter he began to complain of the opposition 
oflfered by the Quakers to the service of the queen, ^ and in 
these representations he was supported by Quary, Coxe, 
and others.^ 

The first assembly, under proprietary control, would take 
no action on the governor's recommendation for the pas- 
sage of a militia act.* But the clique in power, of course, 
realized that they had found an excellent means of making a 
show of patriotism and injuring the Quakers at the same 
time, and when they gained control of the second assembly, 
they carried through a militia bill establishing severe fines 
for those who would not attend musters, and authorizing 
the seizure of their goods if they did not pay.^ The act was 
especially unjust in that it did not provide for a return of 
the excess over the amount of the fine after the goods had 
been sold. Its great object was undoubtedly to enable the 
creatures of Cornbury to injure and persecute their oppo- 
nents under pretense of the law. Much harm was actually 
done to the Friends through the seizure of their property," 
but public opinion in West Jersey was so strongly in their 
favor that several of the constables of Burlington County 
refused to make distress upon them. For this conduct 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, p. 6. "^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 4, 114. 269. 

* Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 53, 83, 236, 273, etc. 

* Assembly Journal, Sept. 7, 1704. 

^ Laws etiacted in 1704 (Bradford print). 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 280; vol. iv, p. 58. 



178 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Richard Wildgoose and seven other ex-constables were 
prosecuted upon informations in November, 1708/ The 
militia act became, indeed, one of the grievances of the pro- 
vince." After the usual delay, hov^ever, it was disallowed 
by the home government.^ 

Whether the militia of New Jersey, as organized under 
this act, was active and efficient as Cornbury claimed, the 
evidence left us is not sufficient to determine, as luckily it 
was not called upon for the actual defence of the province. 
The dissatisfaction of the inhabitants with the control of 
Cornbury was so great, and the incompetency and dishon- 
esty of his subordinates so manifest, that the existence of an 
efficient system, even for a time, is highly improbable. Upon 
the lapsing of the act of 1704, the assembly, now again un- 
der the control of the proprietary party, absolutely refused 
to take further action regarding the militia, and accordingly, 
when Lovelace arrived, he found it virtually dissolved. 

Cornbury undoubtedly did carry out the letter of his in- 
structions regarding military affairs. He issued commis- 
sions to several privateers against the French ; * he regularly 
commissioned militia officers in the various localities; he 
recommended the passage of a militia act to each assembly, 
and even asked aid for the defence of New York. But, by 
allowing his satellites to make use of the military necessities 
of the province for party purposes and for the gratifica- 

^ Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), p. 57. 

* Assembly Journal, May 12, 1708. 

•Apparently on the ground that the money levied might be paid into 
the hands of any person the governor might appoint and because the 
uses to which it was to be put were not specified. Archives, vol. iii, 
P- 324- 

*The briganteen "Good Intent," the briganteen "Abraham and 
Sarah," the sloop "Resolution," and the sloop "Diamond:" libet 
AAA of Commissions, pp. 32, 33, 52, 78. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER lyg 

tion of personal spite, he rendered good results impossible, 
and, indeed, made the military administration not the least 
of the evils of which New Jersey had to complain. 

The governor, although both he and his henchmen made 
great parade of zeal for the Church of England, gave little 
attention to ecclesiastical affairs. This in itself, however, 
was hardly blameworthy, because the Anglicans had as yet 
little foothold in the Jerseys. Still the conduct of his lord- 
ship in this field was no more happy than in other direc- 
tions. Though services were occasionally held at a num- 
ber of places in the two divisions, Amboy, Elizabethtown 
and Burlington alone seem to have had promising parishes, 
and only two missionary clergymen, sent by the Society for 
the Propagation of the Gospel, were at work — Brook in 
East Jersey and Moore in West Jersey. Moore soon identi- 
fied himself with the party of opposition to Cornbury, and 
bravely denounced from the pulpit his debauchery and 
degraded habits.^ He also refused the sacrament to 
Lieutenant-Governor Ingoldsby.' For this boldness Moore 
was in 1707 summoned to New York, but he took the posi- 
tion that while Cornbury was in New York he had no power 
in New Jersey, and refused to obey.^ Cornbury then had 
Moore arrested by the sheriff of Burlington, brought to 
Amboy, and imprisoned in the fort at New York.* In his 
opposition to the governor, Moore had the sympathy of 
Brook, though the latter had taken no active part in the 
controversy.® Now, taking advantage of Cornbury's ab- 
sence in Albany, Moore and Brook both escaped from the 

'Hills, History of the Church in Burlington, pp. 66, 71 et seq. 
"^ Ibid., p. 79. * Ibid.; Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 270. 

* Hills, op. cit., p. 66 et seq. 

* Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 215. 



l8o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

province and sailed from Boston for England.^ This highly 
characteristic incident seems to have furnished the only 
occasion upon which Cornbury exercised any important 
power over the Church." The nominal adherence of the 
governor and most of his crew was, however, a serious 
obstacle to the work of those who were bravely struggling 
to build up the Episcopal Church in New Jersey.^ 

While Cornbury did not openly violate the command to 
guarantee liberty of conscience, we have already seen that, 
through the militia act, he inflicted upon the Quakers no 
inconsiderable hardship. From the beginning he adopted 
toward them an attitude of dislike and distrust ; refused to 
put them in positions of trust whenever he could avoid it; 
and in his correspondence with the home government en- 
deavored to show that they were opposed to all government 
and order.* In a lesser degree he was unfriendly to all 
dissenters. 

In the exercise of his financial duties the governor was 
no less unscrupulous than in other fields. The greatest out- 
rage of his administration was his acceptance of two bribes,' 
and suspicion of further corruption was probably well- 
founded. While he did not so far violate his instructions as 
to refuse to the assembly inspection of Receiver-general 
Fauconnier's accounts, he certainly rendered such inspection 
useless by refusing to submit his vouchers. ° There is no 
doubt that the position assumed by him, that the receiver- 
general was directly responsible only to the English treas- 

* Their vessel was lost at sea. 

'Cornbury says he named the church at Burlington, St. Ann's, New 
Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 107. One Thomas Killingworth was prose- 
cuted upon information for railing at the Church of England. 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 216. 

^ New Jersey Archives, \o\. iii, pp.66, 114. ^ Ibid.,\o\. iii, pp. 198-219. 

* Assembly Journal, May 14, 1707. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER igl 

ury, was the original one of the home authorities, but the 
latter certainly had no desire to conceal from the provincials 
the nature of the financial transactions of the colony/ 
When, after a lengthy struggle, the assembly was at length 
enabled to conduct a careful examination of Fauconnier's 
accounts, they were found unsatisfactory,^ and Hunter, 
upon the advice of the representatives, caused his prose- 
cution.^ 

With regard to the enforcement of his control over trade, 
there was not so much ground for complaint. But this was 
due to the fact that New Jersey really had no trade except 
with New York and Philadelphia."* Cornbury did nothing 
to encourage trade, nor did he make any very serious ef- 
fort to furnish the board of trade with the information re- 
garding it which they desired. No determined effort was 
made by him to prevent smuggling. Indeed, the only note- 
worthy act of Cornbury and his council regarding trade 
was the granting of the sole right to carry goods on the 
road from Burlington to Amboy, to Hugh Huddy, later a 
member of the council." This act was complained of by 
the assembly as the granting of a monopoly." Cornbury, 
in his reply to the charges of 1707, declared that it had had 
a most beneficial result, and that, by enabling all persons to 
dispatch goods once a fortnight at fixed rates, a trade be- 
tween Philadelphia, Burlington, Amboy, and New York, 
had been created. '^ But the assembly returned to the at- 
tack, maintaining, in words which would have delighted 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 515. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 25, 1710-11. 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court (i 704-1 71 5), p. 131. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 21; vol. iv, p. 450. 

^ Liber AAA of Cotumissions, p. 67. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 176. "^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 186. 



l82 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Manchester economists, that perfect freedom of trade was 
alone beneficial/ 

Two other executive acts relating- to a different field also 
gave rise to much complaint. Cornbury allowed the pro- 
vincial secretary to maintain his office at Burlington alone,^ 
and the only office for the probate of wills was kept at the 
same place. ^ Thus all having business in these offices, even 
from distant parts of East Jersey, were compelled to make 
the long journey to Burlington. When these abuses were 
brought forcibly to his attention, Cornbury would allow no 
change.* 

But it was the governor's dealings with the proprietors 
which, after all, aroused the bitterest feelings. When the 
proprietors had surrendered to the crown, it had been done, 
of course, with the understanding that their rights to the 
land should be guaranteed, and the governor's instructions 
relating to his dealings with the proprietors had been pre- 
pared to carry this understanding into effect. Morris and 
other proprietors indeed declared that the surrender had 
been made upon definite conditions.^ This assertion was, 
however, directly denied by the lords of trade. They ad- 
mitted, nevertheless, that the crown desired to protect the 
just interests of the proprietors, and that the instructions 
had been prepared with this object in view." In any case 
Cornbury should of course, have been bound by his instruc- 
tions. But, though he was able in a certain sense to keep 
within the exact words, he violated their spirit most directly 
and shamelessly. 

Before Cornbury's quarrel with the First Assembly, the 
executive was on good terms with the proprietary ma- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 250. 

^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 175. ^Ibid. 

* /bid., vol. iii, pp. 183, 185. '■'Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 72,. 81, 86. 

*Ibid., vol. iii, p. 117. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 1 83 

jority in East Jersey, represented by Morris, Gordon, 
Johnstone, and Willocks. Cornbury recognized Gordon as 
the register of the East Jersey proprietors, and Barclay as 
the collector of the quit-rents, and, following his orders to 
aid the proprietary agents, he had issued a proclamation 
to the inhabitants in behalf of the latter.^ 

After the collection of the " Blind Tax," however, this 
co-operation was exchanged for bitter hostility. Yet Corn- 
bury was obliged to appear to assist the proprietors. He 
therefore recognized the opposing minority element among 
the East Jersey proprietors, the clique of Dockwra and 
Peter Sonmans, as being the rightful proprietary authority.^ 
Previous to the surrender and before his quarrel with Wil- 
locks, Wm. Dockwra had been commissioned as a sort of 
general agent by the proprietors in London, and documents 
signed by him had been recognized as valid, just as if 
signed by a majority of the share-holders.* He had also 
been for a time secretary and register,* as well as collector of 
quit-rents, exercising "his powers, however, by deputy, since 
he had not removed to East Jersey. After his exposure 
by Willocks, however, Dockwra's powers had been sus- 
pended by the council of East Jersey, and all records handed 
over to Thomas Gordon, his former deputy.** Dockwra 
and his supporters, nevertheless, did not recognize this dep- 
osition. Accordingly, in 1705, Dockwra commissioned 
Peter Sonmans as agent of the proprietors, giving him the 
power to sell the proprietors' lands and to collect their 

^ Liber AAA uf Commissions, p. 31. 
* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 189. 

'It was, however, asserted by Willocks that Dockwra had no proper 
authority to claim such power. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 284. 
^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 292. 



1 84 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

quit-rents/ This commission also suspended the council 
of proprietors and declared their acts void. 

Cornbury forthwith recognized Sonmans. He immedi- 
ately recalled his previous proclamation in favor of Barclay 
as receiver-general of quit-rents, and issued another in favor 
of Sonmans,^ Further, he annulled the power of Gordon 
as register, and, in spite of his efforts to avoid the issue, 
compelled him to surrender the proprietary records to Sec- 
retary Basse,^ from whom they passed to Sonmans. For 
his disobedience in the matter Gordon, as we have seen, was 
arrested and subjected to long-continued and unjustifiable 
persecution. As Sonmans was the bitter enemy of the 
Perth Amboy clique, the making-over of the records to him 
was the greatest injury Cornbury could do them. Sonmans, 
it is claimed, carried the records out of the province,* and 
perhaps actually did conceal or make away with a part of 
them. So effective was Sonmans as an ally, that he was 
soon in high favor with the governor, and at his instance 
was appointed to the council. The net result was the vir- 
tual destruction for the time being of the rights of the legi- 
timate proprietors and their council. 

The alliance with Sonmans naturally led Cornbury into 
further difficulties. Arent Sonmans, father of Peter, had 
owned five and one-fourth proprieties in East Jersey, that is 
to say, more than one-sixth of the province. The inherit- 
ance of this large interest was in dispute, for whereas Peter 
claimed the whole, a counter claim was entered by Joseph 
Ormston, of London, merchant, son-in-law of Arent Son- 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 38. 

'Ibid., p. 60. When in 1707 Barclay produced another commission 
signed by ten English proprietors it was taken from him by Corn- 
bury and Council on the pretence that it was to be sent home for 
judgment by the Crown, New Jersey Archives, vo\. iii, pp. 313-316,331. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, p. 75. * Ibid., vol. iii, p. 176. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



185 



mans, as trustee for Peter and his two sisters/ Now, as 
Ormston possessed influence, he succeeded in obtaining a 
royal order through Harley, secretary of state, command- 
ing Cornbury to pass a grant confirming his rights under 
the seal of the province.^ The order was brought to Corn- 
bury by John Ormston, brother of Joseph, but the governor 
delayed upon various pretexts, until Peter Sonmans could 
issue a caveat against the grant; then he delayed further on 
similar trivial grounds, and thus virtually nullified the royal 
order.^ Ormston's cause was at once taken up by the op- 
ponents of the governor, and became one of the long list 
of grievances. 

An even more serious blunder on the part of Cornbury 
was his undertaking to charge fees for the patenting of pro- 
prietary lands.* This abuse, however, was soon stopped by 
an additional instruction.*^ 

Cornbury's relations with the proprietors of West Jersey 
were even more outrageous. His conduct was no doubt 
due to the advice of Coxe, and he was the more easily per- 
suaded because of his dislike of Quakers in general and Jen- 
nings in particular, and of Morris, the agent of the West 
Jersey Society." 

In 1706 he suddenly called upon the council of West 
Jersey proprietors to show the authority by which it pre- 
tended to act.'' In reply the council submitted a statement 

'The claim of Ormston was based upon the assertion that Arent 
Sonmans had [died an alien, and that his rights had reverted to the 
Queen by whom they were given in trust to said Ormston. 

^ Liber AAA of Cotnmissions, p. 71. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 161. 

^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 92. '■'Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 98, 118. 

*Ibid., vol. iii, p. 92; Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West 
Jersey, bk. 2. Oct. 11, 1704. 

' Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 158. 



1 86 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

of its origin, composition and method of election, as well 
as of its duties/ But Cornbury had already enjoined it 
from taking any further steps whatsoever, upon the ground 
that his instructions ordered him to allow the agents of pro- 
prietors to act only upon condition of their taking the 
oath of allegiance to the crown; and as the members of 
the council were not under oath, they must be disbanded.^ 
This action on the part of Cornbury reached the limit of 
absurdity and malice. By it he destroyed the rights of the 
owners of West Jersey as effectually as he had those of 
the proprietors of the sister province, for without their 
council the operations of the proprietorship of West Jersey 
were paralyzed. 

By these outrages, though they were successful for a short 
time, Cornbury stirred to action the ablest and most in- 
fluential men of the province, as well as such powerful per- 
sons as Paul Dominique and Edward Richier in London. 
Numerous protests and representations were sent to the 
home authorities by the proprietors of the two divisions,* 
and in the assembly they took the lead in the conflict with 
the governor. It was undoubtedly the influence of the 
proprietors which contributed most of all to Cornbury's 
downfall. 

In one respect at least Cornbury was forced by circum- 
stances to have regard to his instructions. The continued 
complaints and addresses made to the crown and the lords 
of trade forced him to write frequently to the home authori- 
ties, and to give them at least some information regarding 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 220. "^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 178, 192. 

'The West Jersey Society took the leading part although Dominique, 
Bridges and Michel had petitioned the Lords of Trade to prevent the 
Council of West Jersey Proprietors from proceeding independently of 
the society. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



187 



conditions in the province.^ Whether Cornbury himself 
was the real author of these communications is, of course, 
doubtful. In any case they display ignorance, in some in- 
stances at least not creditable to a governor.^ The motive 
throughout was to justify his lordship's policy, and Corn- 
bury did not hesitate to misrepresent his opponents, especi- 
ally the Quakers, and to conceal facts deliberately when it 
was his interest to do so. All things considered, it seems 
to the modern student rather remarkable that the home 
government did not see through his shallow excuses more 
readily than seems to have been the case. Cornbury, how- 
ever, had an efficient ally in Quary, whose letters placed the 
governor's acts in the most favorable light. Cornbury 
also had the advantage of employing a ])ersonal agent, one 
Mr. Sloper, to make direct representations in answer to 
complaints.' 

Yet in the end the board of trade decided nearly all the 
questions at issue against Cornbury. His earlier recom- 
mendations regarding appointments were in most cases ap- 
proved, but Morris was restored to the council,* and his 
lordship was directed to cease meddling with elections to 
the assembly. He was also told not to charge fees for the 
patenting of proprietary lands,' and was instructed to return 
to the proprietors all records which did not relate directly 
to the government.*' When Lovelace was commissioned in 
Cornbury's place, he received a communication from the 
lords of trade condemning many things which the late gov- 
ernor had done. Persons convicted of wilful murder were 

' Yet in Feb., 1706 the Lords had received no minutes of the Council 
or Assembly; jVezv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 128. 
^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 30. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 133. 

*Ibid., vol. iii, p. 124. '"Ibid., vol. iii, p. 08. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 127. 



l88 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

to be reprieved only until the pleasure of the crown was 
ascertained. Costs were not to be levied upon accused per- 
sons unless indictments were actually found. The patent 
given to Hugh Huddy was declared a monopoly. No fee 
was lawful unless warranted by prescription or enacted by 
the legislature. The establishment of an office for the pro- 
bate of wills in East Jersey, moreover, was not to be held 
a danger to the prerogative.^ 

Throughout, the British authorities showed every desire 
to give justice even against Cornbury, but the vexatious de- 
lays inherent in the colonial system of the eighteenth cen- 
tury rendered their decisions tardy in the extreme. The 
final removal of his lordship, though too long delayed, was 
a real proof of this wish. It may be noted here that Corn- 
bury was the only royal governor actually removed during 
the entire Union Period. 

The administration of " the good Lord Lovelace " was 
too brief to allow of the thorough-going reform of the 
executive department which the circumstances of the case 
urgently demanded. From the beginning, however, the 
new governor showed every inclination to give New Jersey 
an honorable rule, and to carry out his instructions in the 
spirit in which they were intended.^ 

In his first official letter Lovelace informed the lords of 
trade that he had ordered the proper officers to transcribe 
fair accounts of the minutes of the council and assembly, 
also lists of the vessels entered and cleared, and accounts 
of the revenue during Cornbury's time. Lovelace said, 
however, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give 
an accurate account of the number of negroes imported, 
but that he would do his best.^ 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 326-7. ^Ibid... vol. iii, p. 361. 
^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 359. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 1 89 

The only g-overnmental matter of importance during 
Lovelace's time was the session of the council and assembly 
of March and April, 1709. In this session, despite the ful- 
some flattery with which he had been welcomed by the cor- 
rupt ring in the council, Lovelace showed a decided inclina- 
tion to favor their opponents.' This led the assembly, as 
we shall see, to attack the chief advisers of the late governor 
in addresses to both the crown and the governor. The chief 
effort was leveled against Sonmans,- who was accused of 
numerous tyrannical and unjust proceedings in the courts. 
The old clique of favorites was apparently both alarmed 
and angered. The answering addresses, prepared by both 
Ingoldsby and the council ^ and by Sonmans personally,* 
though decidedly defensive in tone, heaped blame upon 
Morris and the Quakers, and even mildly reproved the gov- 
ernor for having listened to the advice of the Scotch pro- 
prietor, George Willocks. Willocks was declared to have 
instigated the assembly in its opposition to the late governor, 
and the fact that he was " a high flowne " Jacobite was 
paraded to prove his dangerous character. Sonmans de- 
fended his conduct elaborately in a clever, but specious, docu- 
ment, which only confirms our opinion that he was an able 
but unprincipled adventurer. 

But though the corruption of Cornbury's time was 
abruptly checked, Lovelace did not remove many of the 
guilty persons from office.^ At the urgent request of the 
assembly, he substituted Miles Forster for Fauconnier as 
receiver-general " and treasurer " of New Jersey, the latter 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii. pp. 364, 367. 

* Ibid., vol. iii, p. 375 et seq. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 390 et seq. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 416 et seq. 

'All sheriffs were compelled by law to give ample security. Ibid., 
vol. xiii, p. 314. 



I90 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

title indicating that he was to be held strictly accountable to 
the assembly.^ The governor also said he would order 
Fauconnier to attend the assembly and submit his vouchers 
when he could be found. Mompesson was superseded as 
chief justice by Thomas Gordon.^ But Basse and Griffith, 
the attorne3'--general, secure in their royal patents, remained 
in office. 

The unfortunate death of Lovelace prevented further de- 
velopments, for Richard Ingoldsby, the lieutenant-governor, 
who, after some hesitation, was recognized by the assembly 
as the legitimate executive until a new governor should be 
commissioned, was himself a member of the clique of Coxe, 
Sonmans and Pinhorne. His accession renewed the old 
executive abuses to some extent, yet his rule was brief, and, 
owing to the tentative character of his power, he was less 
bold than Cornbury. The most immediate result of the 
change was the escape of Sonmans and Basse, who had been 
indicted for their crimes, but who were now acquitted by 
packed juries.^ Gordon, the new chief justice, was at once 
replaced by Mompesson.* 

Ingoldsby performed the usual executive acts, naming 
judges, justices, sheriffs, and officers of the militia. He 
called and presided over three sessions of the assembly, two 
of which were summoned for the purpose of providing for 
the raising of New Jersey's quota of men for the Nicholson- 
Vetch expedition against Canada. In connection with this 
work, Ingoldsby and his council endeavored to force the 
Quakers into a position of disobedience to the queen, be- 

^ Assembly Journal, March 24, 1708; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, 
p. 307. 
'The indictments against Basse and Sonmans immediately followed. 
* Minutes of the Supreme Couri, {1704-1715) , pp. 75, 80-1. 
*• New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 500. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER igi 

cause of their scruples against the employment of soldiers 
for any purpose.^ The lieutenant-governor commissioned 
John Harrison and Jacob Spicer as captains of the two com- 
panies of " fuzilleres " raised for the expedition,^ and also 
gave a commission to a privateer.^ With his council, he 
issued a patent for St. Mary's Church at Burlington.* 

Ingoldsby sent communications to the home authorities, 
in which he stated that he had assumed the administration 
and asked to be continued, because he had performed meri- 
torious service and had received little salary.'' But the im- 
portant laws passed under Lovelace were not forwarded to 
England." Ingoldsby declared later that he knew nothing 
of them, and believed that Lady Lovelace had burned them 
with her husband's other papers. Basse, the secretary, was 
also unable to produce them, though it appeared that the 
printed copies had been taken from the originals. The dis- 
appearance of the acts was a little suspicious, because In- 
goldsby procured from the Fifth Assembly an act giving 
him a large part of the salary voted for Lovelace. Thus 
the queen could not pass on the two appropriation laws 
separately. 

With his satellites, Ingoldsby returned to the attack upon 
Morris, Willocks and Gordon, the first of whom he ven- 
tured to suspend again from the council. '^ The result was, 
however, not what he anticipated, for the lords of trade, 
after investigation, decided that he was not entitled to the ad- 
ministration in New York, as his commission as lieutenant- 
governor for that province had been ordered revoked in 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 470. 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, pp. 103, 104. 

* Ibid., p. 107. It was the ship " Resolution." * Ibid., p. 118. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 460-4. * Ibid., vol. iv, p. 56. 

''Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 368; vol. iii, pp. 464, 476 et seq. 



192 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



1706, though it was not certain that the order had been 
signed by the queen/ They forthwith prepared a new 
order revoking his commission for New Jersey also, and 
commanding him to give up the administration immediately.^ 
Though the reason for this action was not directly stated, 
it is fair to suppose that the lords were determined not to 
permit a continuance of the abuses within the province. 

The appointment of Hunter gave New Jersey for the 
first time a strong and able executive. The new governor 
was also a man who, while by no means forgetful of his own 
interests, was not eager for a parade of power, and who was 
capable of understanding the point of view of the colonists. 
Hunter took no decided steps until experience, derived from 
his relations with the council and assembly, gave him op- 
portunities to judge at first hand the real cause of the evils 
of the provincial government. As in the case of Lovelace, 
the ring in the council endeavored to gain the favor of the 
new executive by an ultra-loyal address.'^ But Hunter was 
unmoved, and after the first session of the legislative bodies 
in which both the past corruption of the administration * 
and the present unscrupulous maneuvers of the council 
were thoroughly revealed, he determined to uphold the pro- 
prietary party and to destroy the influence of their opponents 
as the only means of bringing peace to the province. 

He therefore recommended that Coxe, Sonmans, Pin- 
horne and Hall be removed from the council," and after 
the usual vexatious delay, while the lords of trade examined 
the matter, this was done.® Meanwhile Mompesson, whom 
Hunter and most of the proprietary party regarded rather 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 469. 

'Ibid., vol. iii, p. 474. ''Ibid., vol. iv, p. 17. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 24, 71, 73, 74, 79. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 61. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 182. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



193 



more leniently than the other members of Cornbury's 
dique, voluntarily surrendered his position of chief justice, 
and was succeeded by David Jamison/ a lawyer of good re- 
putation, though a resident of New York. Somewhat later 
Hunter commissioned Thomas Farmar as second judge.* 
Thomas Gordon was made receiver-general " and treas- 
urer." ' John Johnstone and John Hamilton, son of 
Andrew Hamilton, the last proprietary governor, became 
colonels of the militia. Thus the power of the old ring 
was effectually shattered, though Griffith, the attorney- 
general, and Basse, the secretary, secure in their patents, re- 
tained office for some time. Hunter's appointees were 
nearly all prominent proprietors and Scots. In a certain 
sense they undoubtedly constituted a new governmental 
clique; but, though not all of them were above reproach as 
politicians, they were at least a great improvement upon 
their predecessors. 

It is important to note a change since the time of Lovelace 
in the governor's relation to the receiver-generalship. 
Miles Forster had, of course, continued to hold the office of 
provincial receiver-general under Ingoldsby. But when 
the assembly had raised funds for the Nicholson- Vetch ex- 
pedition, it named in the act separate treasurers to handle 
these moneys, different persons being chosen for East and 
for West Jersey. Miles Forster was designated as treas- 
urer for East Jersey, but Dr. John Roberts was given charge 
in the western division. Upon the death of Forster, Gov- 
ernor Hunter appointed Dr. Johnstone, J. Billop, and Wil- 
liam Bradford, to act as commissioners in his room.* 

^ New Jersey Archh<es. vol. iv, p. 70. 
* Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, p. 92. 
^ Liber AAA of Commissions, July 16, 1711. 
^Ibid., July 17. 1710. 



194 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



When, in 171 1, under Hunter, the assembly made provis- 
ions for New Jersey's contingent for the second Canada ex- 
pedition, it again named treasurers for the special handling 
of the sums raised, — Gordon for East Jersey, and Thomas 
Gardiner for West Jersey. Gordon and Gardiner were duly 
commissioned by Hunter to perform the services required/ 
These special treasurerships were, however, distinct from 
the regular provincial treasurership, to which Hunter had 
named Gordon as a person distinctly acceptable to the as- 
sembly. 

Hunter also allowed the assembly to investigate fully the 
work and to fix the accountability of all financial officers. As 
a proof of this decision, he allowed that body to see the bond 
of Fauconnier, the late receiver-general, a privilege for 
which it had formerly striven in vain,^ and when the former 
receiver-general's accounts were found defective,^ directed 
his prosecution.* At the end of his administration, when, 
owing to an error in book-keeping, the accounts of Gordon 
likewise appeared to be unsatisfactory, Hunter asked the 
house whether he should prosecute or not.^ He also 
promptly complied with the wish of the assembly that there 
might be two distinct provincial treasurerships," naming 
Jeremiah Basse for West Jersey,'' and William Hires for 

' Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 134. Upon the death of Gardiner, 
Dr. Roberts was again appointed, ibid., p. 147. 

''Assembly Journal, Jan. 8, 12, 1710-11. 

^Ibid., Jan. 25, 1710-11. 

*^ Minutes of the Supreme Court (i 704-1 71 5), p. 131. 

'^Assembly Journal, March 27, 1719. The House replied that the ac- 
counts had only been found inconsistent and therefore it did not as yet 
desire prosecution. 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 4, 1718-19. 

'When Basse was unable to furnish satisfactory security, Isaac Decowe 
was commissioned by Morris, the President of the Council. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



195 



East Jersey, in room of Gordon. Hunter thus initiated a 
policy which was regularly followed by his successors. 

In spite of the removal of their colleagues, both Griffith 
and Basse gave the governor further trouble. Their con- 
tinued opposition seems to have been due, however, to the 
encouragement of Col. Coxe, who openly assumed the lead- 
ership of the elements hostile to Hunter. Griffith, through 
intentional neglect, rendered the prosecution of Peter Son- 
mans abortive, and allowed him to escape from the province 
with the proprietary records. He virtually refused to begin 
proceedings against Daniel Leeds and other offenders, thus 
thwarting the endeavor of the governor to bring some of 
Cornbury's henchmen to justice. At length, in January, 
1 714-15, the conduct of the attorney-general was consid- 
ered by the governor and council, and Griffith was sus- 
pended. Thomas Gordon was appointed as commissioner 
to execute the office till the pleasure of the crown was 
known.^ 

Basse, the secretary, gave even more trouble. He not 
only refused to obey Hunter's direct orders to qualify 
Thomas Gardiner, the prominent Quaker leader, as sur- 
veyor-general of West Jersey, on the old pretext that he 
would not take the oaths, ^ but also cooperated with the tools 
of Coxe, who for the time being controlled majority senti- 
ment in Burlington County, in indicting Jamison, the new 
chief justice, Col. Lewis Morris, and Gordon, the new 
attorney general, for allowing Quakers to serve upon grand 
juries.^ These indictments were, of course, soon quashed,* 
but formed a part of the policy of obstruction with which 
Coxe assailed Hunter. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 557-563; vol. iv, p. 209. 
^Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 141-S, 148. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 230, 236-40. 

* Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, p. 97. 



196 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

At this juncture the death of the queen brought a new 
complication, for it was now necessary for all royal officers 
to be recommissioned. Coxe and his supporters at once 
exerted all their influence in England to prevent the issue 
of a new commission to Hunter. Representations against 
Hunter were made by Dr. Daniel Coxe, the former proprie- 
tor of West Jersey,^ by Cornbury, now Earl of Clarendon,^ 
and others. But the new governor had been too useful. 
Not only was a new commission granted, but his administra- 
tion received the direct approval of the crown. ^ 

And indirectly, also, the change of sovereigns proved help- 
ful to Hunter, for Basse, against whom the governor had 
naturally made outspoken complaints * to the lords of trade, 
was superseded as provincial secretary by James Smith. ^ 
This downfall of Basse brought an interesting result. 
Threatened by further disaster, the ex-secretary apparently 
made up his mind that Hunter would be successful in con- 
trolling the province, and not only ceased from opposition, 
but gradually acquired the governor's confidence. When 
chosen to the assembly, he proved a useful member,® and 
eventually, in 1719, was named by Hunter himself as 
Gordon's successor as attorney-general and also, as treas- 
urer of West Jersey.'' 

It was not alone the leading executive positions which were 
refilled by Hunter. As a part of his war upon the sup- 
porters of Cornbury, he removed all the members of the old 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 198, 203. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, p. 199. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 202, 215, 327. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 139, 172, 209, 234. -'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 2. 

•The speech made by Basse in Jan. 15, 1716-7 regarding the financial 
situation is the only speech during the period reported at length in the 
Assembly Journal. 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions. Mar. 28, 1719. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER I97 

clique from their offices as associate provincial justices and 
as county judges. Hunter maintained that this was the 
only method of purifying the courts and of restoring to the 
province the right of bona tide appeal.^ Such sheriffs, jus- 
tices of the peace and militia officers as had been con- 
spicuously identified with the party of Cornbury and Coxe 
were also replaced. It was one of the complaints made 
against Hunter by his enemies that many of his removals 
were arbitrarily made, without reason stated.' But this 
objection could have deceived no one who knew the cir- 
cumstances. On the other hand, the governor gave over 
the whole machinery of the government to the adherents 
of the proprietors. With his appointees in power, no 
movement hostile to them had the slightest chance of suc- 
cess. 

Not only were Hunter's chief opponents removed from 
places of trust, but most of them soon ceased for other rea- 
sons to be factors in provincial affairs. Mompesson and 
Townley died not long after their overthrow.^ Sonmans 
fled from the province, while Coxe, after expulsion from 
the assembly, betook himself to England to attack Hun- 
ter before the home authorities. His influence in the pro- 
vince was still considerable, however, and he reappeared 
in the next administration to engage in new conflicts. Pin- 
horne retired into private life. Owing to the disobedience 
of Griffith and the disappearance of Sonmans and Coxe 
from New Jersey, Hunter's efforts to bring the members of 
Cornbury 's ring to justice failed. Fauconnier alone under- 
went a lengthy prosecution, and even he seems to have 
escaped a direct judgment against him. But. after all, the 
motive of the governor and his supporters was rather to 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 150. ^ Ibid.,\o\.'\\, pp. 129, 204. 
* Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 175, 208. 



198 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

drive their opponents from power than to take personal 
vengeance/ 

The closest advisers of Hunter seem to have been Morris, 
for whom he had special regard; Dr. Johnstone, so long 
prominent in proprietary affairs; James Alexander, who 
had recently arrived from Scotland, but who was destined 
to play a leading part for many years in all proprietary 
matters ; Thomas Gardiner, the brave Quaker, while he 
lived; and Col. Farmar, of Middlesex." 

So far we have been considering the use made by Hunter 
of the power of appointment and removal alone. Though 
this was, as must always be the case, the lever controlling 
the governor's other duties, we must now notice a little more 
carefully the work of Hunter in other fields. 

There is little in Hunter's exercise of his judicial powers 
to need comment in this section, especially as the judicial 
system will be made the subject of more detailed study later. 
Hunter issued a new ordinance for constituting and regulat- 
ing the courts, but it did little more than repeat the excel- 
lent provisions of Cornbury's original ordinance.^ The 
condition of the courts under Hunter was an especially im- 
portant matter, since he had announced it as the key-note of 
his policy that all disputes regarding property should be de- 
cided judicially,* and a test case regarding the validity of 
the claims of the proprietors to unpatented portions of the 
Elizabethtown tract was brought and came to an issue be- 
fore the Supreme Court in 1718." Under Hunter's admin- 

' The case of Basse is an illustration. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 119. 

'Field, op. cit., appendix D, p. 263. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 427. 

*The case of Jacob Daniel on the demise of Vaughan vs. Joseph 
Woodruff; Minutes of the Supreme Court (Perth Amboy, 1714-1731). 
p. 27. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



199 



istration the decision in favor of the proprietors was, of 
course, to be expected, but there is not the slightest direct 
evidence to show that the proceedings were in any way un- 
fair. In general, the courts seem to have met regularly 
and quietly, to have observed the laws and customary usages, 
and not to have laid themselves open to charges of injustice 
and corruption.^ Hunter himself did not interfere with the 
action of the courts, setting in this respect an excellent 
example for later executives. 

Hunter, for really the first time, gave the Jerseys a 
militia system which did not cause continual complaint. 
This was organized by the governor under a new militia act, 
the passage of which was secured as soon as Hunter had 
overthrown the obstructive ring which opposed him.^ The 
new arrangement permitted the Friends to escape military 
duties on the payment of reasonable fines. The enforce- 
ment of the act appears to have been left by Hunter to the 
militia officers and the local authorities, upon whom they 
were authorized to call. Under the circumstances it could 
not be expected that the militia would reach any very high 
degree of efficiency,' but the conclusion of the long war with 
France made this a matter of less importance than formerly. 
Hunter deserves at least credit for putting the system upon 
a permanent footing, and removing the abuses of Cornbury 
and Ingoldsby's time, even if he did not achieve the im- 
possible task of making the Quakers of West Jersey into 
formidable troops. 

In ecclesiastical affairs, however. Hunter found peculiar 
difficulties. This was partly because, though himself a 

'When the Assembly asked for Jamison's removal because he was a 
resident of New York, no charges of improper conduct were brought. 

* Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 541; Bradford, Laws of Nezv Jer- 
sey, 1717. 

* New Jersey Archh'es, vol. iv, p. 323. 



200 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Churchman,^ he was a moderate, not in sympathy with vio- 
lent and coercive efforts to extend the authority of the 
Church of England, and partly because the political circum- 
stances of the province had caused him to identify himself 
with a party composed largely of Dissenters and Quakers, 
or at least of persons sure to be represented as such by their 
opponents.^ The power of the governor to collate to bene- 
fices meant little in New Jersey, as the supply of clergymen 
sent by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel was 
always insufficient to meet the demands of the several con- 
gregations which had been formed in various parts of the 
province. During Hunter's time only four Anglican clergy- 
men were regularly settled in the province. These were 
Edward Vaughan at Amboy, Thomas Halliday at Elizabeth- 
town, Dr. Inness in Monmouth, and the able and energetic 
Talbot at Burlington. 

The ring of favorites who had surrounded Lord Corn- 
bury had made great protestations of zeal for the Church. 
It was natural, therefore, that Cornbury's clique should find 
support from some of the clergy. In Monmouth, where the 
church had been built up partly by the influence of Col. 
Lewis Morris, there was naturally no difficulty. But in 
Amboy Mr. Halliday was an adherent of Cornbury and es- 
pecially friendly to Peter Sonmans. This fact caused trou- 
ble between the missionary and Willocks, Gordon, and other 
prominent proprietors who were members of the parish and 
hostile to Sonmans. Finally, in 1713, Halliday denounced 
Willocks from the desk for misappropriating funds of the 
church. The result was the virtual expulsion of the clergy- 

' Hunter was a member of the Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 128, 323. See, however, ibid., 
vol. iv, p. 176 et seq. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 20I 

man by his parishioners, though he persisted in remaining 
at Piscataway and officiating in other neighboring places.' 
Hunter, though annoyed, apparently took no official notice 
of the matter. 

Ver}' different, however, was his attitude toward Rev. 
John Talbot, of St. Mary's. Burlington. This church, 
which had prospered greatly under the energetic rectorship 
of Talbot, was the chief center of opposition to Quakerism 
in West Jersey." Among its prominent members were 
Col. Daniel Coxe, Secretary Basse, and Alexander 
Griffith, and Hunter soon came to regard St. Mary's 
as an organization of his opponents. He was es- 
pecially bitter against Talbot himself, whom he knew to 
be using his influence in support of Col. Coxe. He accused 
Talbot and his parishioners of being Jacobites, and said that 
Talbot, by organizing them as a church, had consecrated 
their treason. "'* This charge was transmitted by the lords 
of trade to the Society for the Propagation of the Gos- 
pel, by whom it was sent to Talbot for an answer. The 
denials drawn up by Talbot, Basse, and the church wardens * 
seem to have been received as satisfactory, however, as 
the society took no action. Hunter's complaints against 
the aid given by the energetic missionary to his opponents 
nevertheless continued, and furnish good evidence that Tal- 
bot was a power in \\'est Jersey.'' To Hunter's appeals the 
lords of trade eventually responded by informing the Bishop 
of London that complaints had been made by Hunter and 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, pp. 
216-7. 

'Hills, History of the Church in Burlington, p. 45 2iW(S. passion . 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv. p. 209. 

* Hills, op. cit., pp. 140-5. 

^ New Jersey lArchives , vol. iv. pp. 220. 224, 226, 230. 234, etc. 



202 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

other royal officers against his missionaries/ but they took 
no active steps to right matters. 

The governor was therefore forced to take action himself 
and in May, 171 6, the case of Talbot was considered by the 
council." That body, now entirely in the hands of Hunter's 
friends, held Talbot's conduct to be that of a Jacobite and 
an inciter of disorder in the province. An order was there- 
fore sent to the sheriff of Burlington to administer the oath 
of allegiance to the troublesome missionary, and, in case 
he refused, to prevent him from exercising his functions 
further, and to arrest him and hold him in custody until he 
gave security for good behavior.^ These means, appear to 
have been effective in silencing Talbot. 

The passing-away of the political animosity aroused by 
the fight of Col. Coxe against the governor, and probably 
the wish to resume work at St. Mary's, soon led Talbot, 
however, to desire a change in his relations with Hunter. 
At any rate, a reconciliation between him and the governor 
was finally effected through the influence of their mutual 
friend, George Willocks, himself an avowed Jacobite.* 
Talbot, according to Willocks' statement, admitted his er- 
rors, apologized for what he had done, and promised to 
meddle no more in politics. After the reconciliation, he re- 
sumed his duties at St. Mary's and continued the labors 
which have justly caused his name to be remembered with 
honor. 

Another clergyman who embarrassed Hunter was Mn 
Vesey, of New York, who was eventually named by the 
Bishop of London as commissary for that province.^ Hunter 
regarded him as a confederate of Talbot, and likewise com- 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 212. ''Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 16. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 18. ''Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 290, 291, 294. 298, 301. 

''Ibid., vol. iv, p. 218. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 203 

plained of his conduct to the board of trade. ^ At the same 
time, however, he declared that Vesey had no power to do 
him serious harm." 

During the early part of his administration Hunter was 
also troubled by Rev. Jacob Henderson, a missionary of 
Pennsylvania, and evidently a sympathizer with Talbot and 
Coxe. In 1 712 Mr. Henderson made a representation to 
the home authorities stating that the removal by Hunter of 
Cornbury's friends in the council was really an attack upon 
the Church of Englanrl.' Coxe, Sonmans, and their con- 
federates were represented as zealous churchmen, while 
Morris was said to be a man of no principles, and the six 
persons recommended for the council were denounced as 
Dissenters, Quakers, and men of ill character. Henderson 
reached the height of absurdity when he said that John 
Harrison, one of the new councillors, was believed upon 
good authority to have been brought up by " one Kid, a 
Pirate." It was also said that Hunter did nothing to en- 
courage the Church, and that as a result Anglicanism was 
at a low ebb in the Jerseys. 

As a result of the high church attack, the board of trade 
consulted the Bishop of London regarding the character of 
those recommended by Hunter for the council vacancies.* 
The accusations were, however, effectively answered by one 
of Hunter's friends, probably Morris,' and were too pal- 
pably groundless to injure those whose characters were 
assailed. The changes in the council were forthwith ap- 
proved by the bishop. 

With the exception of the case of Talbot, Hunter avoided 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 216, 220, 22^. 

"* Ibid., vol. iv, p. 219. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 155. ^ Ibid., vol. iv. p. 168. 

''Ibid., vol. iv, p. 161. 



204 T^HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

interfering directly with the Church/ contenting himself 
with making representations to the board of trade which 
he knew would be presented to the Bishop of London. This 
course was certainly a wise one, for, even as it was, Hunter 
had been represented as attacking the Anglican missionaries 
in the interests of Quakers. The matter is again an illustra- 
tion of what we may call Hunter's negative wisdom. He 
usually knew well what not to do. 

In the financial field Hunter's policy has been to some ex- 
tent indicated. While carrying out scrupulously the form 
of his instructions, he simply acquiesced in complete prac- 
tical control of the treasury by the assembly. He named 
"treasurers" agreeable to the assembly; be allowed the 
strictest auditing of their accounts; and at the close of his 
administration he even declared that, as the assembly had 
assumed control of the finances, he would follow its advice 
about the prosecution of Thomas Gordon, treasurer of the 
province, whose accounts had been judged unsatisfactory.^ 
By taking this position Hunter again avoided difficulties, 
yet he did so by the practical surrender of a most im.- 
portant field to the representatives. 

The attitude of Hunter toward the trade of the province 
permits of no lengthy discussion. He, of course, permitted 
the royal customs officers to discharge their duties, but ap- 
parently made no very energetic efforts to assist them. 
We have no evidence that he submitted any account of 
negroes imported, and in answering a set of questions trans- 
mitted to him toward the close of his administration, he 
stated that New Jersey had no foreign trade. Everything 
was obtained from New York or Philadelphia, he declared, 

' Hunter granted licenses upon petition for the building of churches 
at Woodbridge and Piscataway. 
* Assembly Journal , March 27, 1719. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



205 



and a few coasting sloops made up the entire marine of the 
province/ In this field, as well as others, Hunter was con- 
tent to leave things as they were. 

In his attitude toward the proprietors Hunter, of course, 
reversed entirely the policy of Cornbury and Ingoldsby. 
Yet he aided the legitimate owners of the .province rather by 
giving them control of the legislative department of the gov- 
ernment, through the ousting of their foes from the council 
and defeating the efforts of Coxe to control the assembly, 
than by direct interference in proprietary affairs. The 
moral support of the governor meant a great deal, how- 
ever, to Morris and his party. 

The first object of the proprietors after regaining influ- 
ence was naturally to depose Peter Sonmans from the posi- 
tion as agent and collector-general of quit-rents, which 
through Cornbury 's aid, he had usurped, to recover the pro- 
prietary records, and to punish him for his conduct. But 
Sonmans, on learning that complaints against him had been 
brought to the attention of Hunter, fled from the province, 
carrying the records with him. Meanwhile a warrant for 
the apprehension of Sonmans had been issued by the chief 
justice. But soon afterward the trunk containing the re- 
cords fell, by design Hunter believed, into the hands of 
Basse, who was deputy surveyor of customs at Burlington. 
Basse for the time being refused to part with them." But 
they were later made over by order of Hunter in council 
to Thomas Gordon as the properly constituted register. 

In 171 5, however, the matter was more definitely settled, 
for when Basse was replaced by James Smith as secretary 
of the province, the latter produced a commission as pro- 
prietary register and recorder for both divisions of the 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 449-50. 
*Tbid., vol. iv, pp. 171-2; vol. xiii, p. 559. 



2o6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

province. At the same time James Alexander, later so 
prominent in the affairs of both New York and New Jersey, 
laid before the council a similar commission as surveyor- 
general of East and West Jersey. A royal letter approving 
the proprietary appointment of Smith and Alexander was 
also submitted, and the governor and council forthwith 
issued a proclamation forbidding all other persons to exer- 
cise the said offices.^ 

The defeat of Sonmans naturally led to the long de- 
ferred victory of Joseph Ormston, in spite of the efforts of 
Attorney-General Griffith to hinder. The case was, in 
March, 171 3, brought before Hunter and council on a peti- 
tion from Willocks, acting as attorney for Ormston. As a 
result, the council ordered that a grant of the lands formerly 
held by Arent Sonmans be made to Ormston in due form, 
as required by the queen's letter to Lord Cornbury.^ 

With regard to the West Jersey proprietorship, Hunter 
had to face a slightly different situation. Upon the ac- 
cession of Lovelace the council of proprietors had resumed 
its operations.^ Lewis Morris, the agent of the West 
Jersey Society, became president of the council, and Thomas 
Gardiner was again surveyor-general. But in the fall of 
171 1 Basse, as secretary of the province, although directly 
commanded so to do by Hunter,^ refused to qualify Gardiner 
for his office, on the ground that he would not take the re- 
quired oath, and also because his selection had not been as- 
sented to by all the proprietors of West Jersey. ° The situ- 
ation was now further complicated by the capture of the 

' Ae7i> Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 2-3. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 542, 554-5. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. 2, p. 7. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 141. 

'•'Ibid., vol. iv, p. 142 et seq. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



207 



council of proprietors itself by Coxe and his supporters, 
which occurred in 1712/ Daniel Leeds, Coxe's old tool, 
was at once joined with Gardiner in the post of surveyor- 
general, and further complications resulted. 

But upon the defeat of Coxe in his political campaign 
against Hunter and his flight from the province, the Quaker 
interest again dominated in the proprietorship. Upon com- 
plaint by Thomas Byerly, the proceedings of Leeds were 
considered by the governor and council, and he was removed 
from office and prosecuted by their order on the charge of 
altering the West Jersey Records.^ In 171 5, as has been 
indicated, the situation was at length simplified by the official 
recognition of James Smith and James Alexander, as re- 
gister and surveyor-general, respectively, for West Jersey. 
Thus the situation existing before Cornbury's interference 
was reestablished, though not owing to any active inter- 
vention by Hunter himself. 

In one department at least Hunter was active. This was 
in keeping up a constant communication with the board of 
trade and Secretary Popple. His letters certainly kept 
the home government fully informed as to the condition of 
politics in the Jerseys, as well as to the course of the gov- 
ernor himself. Hunter's correspondence is both clear and 
interesting, fully convincing the student of the governor's 
ability and literary attainments. As was to be expected. 
Hunter was outspoken in his attacks upon Coxe, Talbot and 
his other enemies, and no doubt failed to do justice to their 
motives and points of view. It must be remembered, how- 
ever, that he was dealing with a dangerous political situa- 
tion, and that his opponents were both annoying and un- 

^ Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. 3, p. 2. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 516, 563. He was tried but not 
convicted. 



2o8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

scrupulous. One noteworthy feature about Hunter's let- 
ters is certainly the very evident anxiety they display re- 
garding the support of the home authorities/ Coxe and 
Dockwra possessed influence in England, and the governor 
had good cause for dreading defeat. The home govern- 
ment, to its credit, apparently never wavered in its attitude 
toward its able servant. Yet this fact could not be at once 
apparent. Hunter's feeling in the matter makes plain what 
was undoubtedly one of the chief obstacles with which pro- 
vincial executives had to contend. 

Hunter also transmitted regularly the journals of the 
houses and the acts of the assembly with comments. These 
were of course sometimes delayed, but never without proper 
reason. 

Altogether, Hunter was in many respects the best execu- 
tive New Jersey had during the Royal Period. He dealt 
with a most trying situation by the only means possible, and 
eventually brought the province to a condition of peace and 
prosperity. He kept his dignity under much annoyance, 
and, though not infallible, made few mistakes. His actions 
were seldom unjust and always reasonable. Still it cannot 
be denied that Hunter, to some extent, won success by sacri- 
ficing the position of the executive. In his hands the gov- 
ernorship tended to become rather the means by which 
the assembly executed its purposes, than the strong and 
leading factor in colonial affairs. Indeed, Hunter seldom 
employed his power at all when it could be avoided. His- 
torically, this was the correct course, as it was in line with 
the ever-growing spirit of democracy and popular govern- 
ment. Yet Hunter handed over to his successor an execu- 



' Burnet refers to Hunter's lack of support at home, New Jersey Ar- 
chives, vol. xiv, p. i6i. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 209 

tive power limited by precedent to a greater degree than it 
had been when he assumed office. 

Governor Burnet had the advantage of Hunter's advice 
in beginning his administration, and naturally adopted the 
same general policy. He made no radical changes in the 
composition of the council, and retained many of Hunter's 
appointees in subordinate executive offices. Jamison was 
continued as chief justice and Basse as attorney-general 
till 1723, when James Alexander succeeded him. James 
Smith, of course, remained as secretary. 

Burnet made no objection to the double treasurership 
which had been established after the resignation of Gordon. 
He named John Allen, who had served in the assembly, as 
a representative of the town of Burlington,^ as treasurer of 
West Jersey, and, upon the death of Eires, appointed Michael 
Kearney, of Perth Amboy,- for East Jersey. Both of these 
men seem to have been thoroughly acceptable to the repre- 
sentatives, and performed their duties creditably. Some 
changes in the command of the militia are to be noted, but 
they do not seem, with one exception,' to have been of poli- 
tical significance. 

Under Burnet's rule, feeling developed strongly against 
the continuance of officers who were not residents of the 
Jerseys.'* For this reason, while not charging him with 
any offense, the assembly in November, 1723, requested 
Burnet to supersede Jamison." Burnet readily complied, 
and nominated William Trent, then speaker of the as- 

^ Assembly Journal, March 7, 1721-2. 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy. 
p. 90. 

'That of Colonel Daniel Coxe. 

* Hunter was not free from blame in this respect. 

^ Assembly Joutnal. Nov. 23, 1723. 



2IO THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

sembly.^ Upon Trent's sudden death a little later, Robert 
Lettice Hooper took his place." Both of these appointments 
were of a high order, and neither gentleman had been to a 
great degree identified with any political faction. 

Indeed, Burnet was able to improve upon Hunter by not 
committing himself quite so completely to one party. While 
rather favorable to the proprietors, he was not their partisan 
to the same extent as Hunter. Circumstances made such 
a change desirable, for under Hunter the old corrupt ring 
of Cornbury had been thoroughly destroyed, and Coxe, 
Sonmans and Dockwra reduced to comparative helplessness. 
It was therefore possible for the next governor to keep 
clear of party issues. The dying-away of the former bit- 
ter conflict is shown by the fact that Burnet even thought 
best to make Daniel Coxe colonel of the militia regiment 
of the new County of Hunterdon." 

Later in the administration a new danger to the poli- 
tical peace of the province appeared. While the old 
popular opposition to the proprietors at Elizabethtown 
and elsewhere had been taken advantage of by Coxe 
and Sonmans to advance their own ends, the real 
struggle under Cornbury and Hunter had been between 
Morris, the Amboy clique and the Quakers on one side, 
and their rivals for control of the proprietorship, aided 
by political spoilsmen like Basse and Ingoldsby, on the 
other. After the collapse of the efforts of Coxe and 
Sonmans and the establishment of peace, however, there 
came a revival of the old popular movement in East Jersey. 
This interesting and important movement will be more fully 
noticed elsewhere. Suffice it to say here, that it did not dis- 

^ Nerv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 95, 257. 

'^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 289. 

'^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 187. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 211 

turb the peace of the province while Burnet was in control, 
though his g-eneral attitude enabled it to gain some headway. 

But though Burnet continued the general policy of Hun- 
ter, he did not accept counsel from the same circle of ad- 
visers and friends. He remained on good terms with 
Morris and Alexander, it is true. But from the beginning 
he resented violently the interference of George Willocks 
in public affairs.^ This soon brought upon him the secret 
opposition of Dr. John Johnstone, who was closely associ- 
ated with Willocks. The reasons for the clash were, no 
doubt, partly personal, as Johnstone and Willocks were fond 
of power, while Burnet on his side coukl not keep his per- 
sonality in the background, as Hunter had done, and actu- 
ally rule while seeming to follow. Moreover. Willocks 
was an avowed Jacobite, a fact which appeared far more 
criminal to the scholar Burnet than to the soldier Hunter. 
But a stronger reason for the hostile attitude of Johnstone 
and Willocks toward Burnet was undoubtedly that the lat- 
ter refused to lend himself to certain land-jobbing trans- 
actions and to a scheme which the pair of land speculators 
had taken up for incorporating the proprietors upon such 
terms as would give all the power to the y\mboy group." 

Johnstone and Willocks possessed great political influence 
in both divisions, and caused Burnet much annoyance in his 
early dealings with the assembly." In 1722, however, the 
governor succeeded in getting the assembly to pass an 
"Act for the Security of His Majesty's Government of New 
Jersey," * which declared those who refused to take the 

^ Nejv Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 11, 32. 

^ Ibid., vol. Y, p. 56 ef seq.; p. lOl. 

'In consequence, Burnet had Willocks arrested as a person disaffected 
to the government and bound over to good behavior. Neiv Jersey Ar- 
■< hives, vol. xiv, p. 151. 

^Allinson, Statutes. 



212 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

oaths of allegiance to the king " Popish Recusants Con- 
vict," and hable to all the penalties established against such 
persons by the laws of England. Threatened by such a 
danger, Willocks was forced to leave New Jersey/ John- 
stone, on the other hand, wisely gave up his concealed hos- 
tility to Burnet, after the latter had demonstrated his ability 
to maintain himself. In spite of the difficulties resulting, 
the quarrel probably had a good result. New Jersey had 
certainly been threatened with the formation of another 
executive ring, but the independence of Burnet prevented 
it from solidifying. 

In his attitude toward the various fields of executive 
power, Burnet was much like Hunter, though he at first un- 
doubtedly felt himself more closely bound by the letter of 
his instructions.^ Three judiciary ordinances were issued 
upon his authority, though it is hardly to be supposed that 
he was actually their author.^ The first, that of 1723, the 
" Ordinance of George II," was practically a copy of Mom- 
pesson's original work. This was followed by another, in 
1725, which changed the time of holding some of the courts. 
In 1728 came, however, a more important ordinance, by 
which two supreme courts were really created, one to be 
held four times a year at Burlington, and the other four 
times a year at Amboy. This change was made in response 
to long-continued agitation in the assembly.* Burnet was 
said to have been especially fond of exercising his powers in 
chancery, and in 1724 issued the first ordinance for regulat- 
ing fees in chancery.^ 

The judicial system seems to have worked very smoothly 
under Burnet's well-qualified judges, and to have been 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. loi. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 161. 

* Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, appendix E, F, G. 

* Ibid., p. 114. ^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 251. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 213 

creditable to the province/ There was the more need of a 
well-regulated judiciary, because issue upon the question of 
the Elizabethtown grants was soon again to be joined in 
the courts. 

Burnet, following his instructions literally, was more ac- 
tive in military affairs than his predecessor,- in spite of the 
fact that active hostilities with the French had ceased. Soon 
after his accession, in April, 1721, Burnet laid the articles 
of his instructions relative to this field before the council, 
and asked for their assistance in obtaining legislation for 
giving aid to New York in supporting frontier defenses, for 
erecting suitable fortifications in New Jersey, and for mak- 
ing the militia more efficient.^ But the council would only 
say that it was just that the Jerseys should aid in resisting 
French encroachments and providing for the common de- 
fense of the colonies, that, owing to the situation of the 
province, fortifications were entirely unnecessary, and that 
the defense of the colony depended entirely upon the militia, 
which should be made as efficient as possible.* Burnet evi- 
dently endeavored to arouse interest in the subject of de- 
fense by lending credence to the reports of hostile Indian 
movements.'' But the attempt of the council to carry 
through a stricter militia act was nevertheless defeated by 
the assembly.® The effect made by the governor's efforts 
upon public opinion in the colony may be shown by the as- 
sertion attributed to one John Case, of Monmouth,^ " that 
the country was men and would never be imposed upon, 
and that they would stand by one another, and that they 

^ Field calls Burnet's administration " the golden age of our colonial 
history." 
'His attitude was of course in line with his policy in New York. 
"New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv. p. 166 et seg. 
^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 174. '^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 198. 

''Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 198. ''Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 201. 



214 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



were not to be frightened with notions of Canada Indians, 
for he was the man would fight them all himself that would 
ever come to disturb this country." 

At the next session of the assembly, however, Burnet did 
obtain an act somewhat stricter than that of Hunter.^ He 
also succeeded in organizing a new militia regiment in West 
Jersey, thus bringing the number in the province up to six. 

Though Burnet was naturally interested in ecclesiastical 
affairs, he had little call to take positive action regarding 
the Church of England in New Jersey. The violently ag- 
gressive attitude of the earlier missionaries of the Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel seems to have been al- 
tered somewhat by the victory of Hunter over Talbot and 
Coxe, and even the A^nglican Church relapsed into the 
calm which seems to mark the entire history of the Jerseys 
during Burnet's rule. Burnet nevertheless saw fit to secure 
from "the Society" the final dismissal of the devoted Talbot 
on the ground that he was a Jacobite. 

That the subject of trade was receiving more active at- 
tention from the home government is made evident by the 
additional instructions issued to Burnet. As the direct trade 
of the Jerseys with foreign ports, however, was still incon- 
siderable,^ the governor evidently thought that he had little 
call for action. But though the administration of New 
Jersey was thus made singularly easy in this respect, there 
is no means of knowing how much illegal trade actually 
went on. The financial administration of Burnet was also, 
in the main, a continuation of that of Hunter, the powers es- 
tablished by the assembly over the treasury being unques- 
tioned. Yet when the assembly in 1723 tried to carry 
through a bill compelling the estate of Thomas Gordon, the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv. p. 2.^4 ; vol. v. p. 54. 
"^Ibid., vol. v, pp. 21, 87. 



THE EXECUTIVE POWER 



215 



late treasurer, to make good the sum for which he was be- 
Heved to be indebted to the province/ the governor, acting of 
course with the council, compelled the representatives to 
allow the substitution of legal proceedings against the rep- 
resentatives of Gordon, for the direct punishment proposed.* 
On the other hand, as will be more fully shown elsewhere, 
Burnet accepted the colonial point of view with regard to 
paper money, and wrote several times to the lords of trade 
in support of acts for the issue of bills of credit, and for 
the appropriation of the interest money thereby accruing to 
the support of the government. 

There were several interesting developments in the affairs 
of the proprietors of East Jersey during this administration, 
though we must limit ourselves in this chapter to stating 
briefly the governor's connection with them. In 1725 the 
old council of proprietors of East Jersey was reestablished 
for the general direction of the proprietary affairs, and 
thereafter continued to hold regular meetings, generally 
twice a year.^ Lewis Morris became president of the 
council, while Alexander, Kearney, Hamilton and John- 
stone, with other persons holding office, wtrt prominent 
members. The revival of the council undoubtedly increased 
die proprietary influence in the public affairs of the province, 
though, unfortunately, that influence is now difficult to 
trace. The governor was on friendly terms with the coun- 
cil of proprietors, though there is no evidence that it exer- 
cised improper influence over him. Upon application from 
the proprietors,^ Burnet issued a proclamation declaring 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 261. 

"■Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 284, 302, 309. The result justified Burnet as it 
was shown that the apparent default of Gordon was due to a mere mis- 
take in his accounts. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey. 

'Ibid., bk. A, p. 8. 



2i6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Richard Ashfield the legally constituted receiver-general of 
quit-rents/ This step was, of course, in accordance with 
his instructions, but such action had not been taken since 
Cornbury issued his dishonest proclamation in favor of 
Sonmans. 

At about this time Peter Sonmans himself not only ven- 
tured to return to the province, but actually collected quit- 
rents from the trustees of Bergen township, in virtue of his 
commission of 1703. This fraud was at once brought to 
the notice of Burnet in council by the proprietors, and, after 
investigation,- Sonmans was bound over for trial before the 
Supreme Court. Though he eventually managed to escape 
direct conviction, he was thus effectually removed from ob- 
structing further the management of proprietary affairs. 
Aside from these matters, Burnet did not interefere in ques- 
tions of the rights of proprietors. 

Proprietary affairs in West Jersey remained, so far as the 
provincial executive was concerned, exactly as in Hunter's 
time. 

Like all capable governors, Burnet was diligent in his cor- 
respondence with his superiors in England. He did not, 
however, devote as much time and attention to the affairs 
of the Jerseys as Hunter had done, nor do his letters carry 
as clear and as accurate a picture of political conditions in 
the colony. Burnet appears to have regularly dispatched 
provincial acts and the journal of the house. Towards the 
end of his administration, however, he received an order 
from Secretary Popple bidding him be more prompt in 
giving information regarding (i) the accounts and receipts 
of all public moneys, especially of quit-rents and fines; (2) 
the number of inhabitants and accounts of christenings and 

^ Aew Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 125. 
'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 309 ei seq. 



THE EXECUTIJ'E POWER 



217 



burials;" (3) ordinance and all kinds of military stores; 
(4) maps of New "^'ork and New Jersey and accounts of 
the strength of their neighbors.' Burnet promised to have 
the proper officers prepare such accounts at once. With re- 
gard to the second point, however, he said that he had been 
advised that, since the people of New Jersey were chiefly of 
New England extraction, they would regard such an enum- 
eration as a repetition of the sin which David committed in 
numbering the people. This had caused him to put it off. 
Moreover, the dissenting ministers kept no account of chris- 
tenings and burials and Quakers did not baptize, so that no 
accurate statement of these things could be given. As re- 
gards military affairs, while he promised to submit an ac- 
count for New ^'ork, he made no mention of the Jerseys. 

A little later, a census of the Jerseys was actually taken - 
which showed that the province contained 32,442 people, 
2,581 of whom were negroes. It had about three- fourths 
as many people as New York. Burnet also caused to be 
compiled from the accounts of the customs officers the state- 
ment as to negroes imported which had so often been asked 
for in vain. It was said that from 1698 to 1717 none had 
entered the province. From 1718 to 1727, 115 negroes had 
been brought, all from Barbadoes, Jamaica and other parts 
of the West Indies. The report, however, covered only 
East Jersey.^ 

The administrations of Montgomerie and Cosby were too 
brief to permit many general assertions as to the exact 
status of the executive power in their hands. Their ap- 
pointments hardly had much political significance. Just be- 
fore the transfer of Burnet, he had superseded Hooper as 
chief justice bv Thomas Farmar. who had remained as 

^ New Jersey Arc/uves. vol. v, p. 117. ^ fbid.. vol. v, p. 164. 

^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 152. 



2i8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

second judge since Hunter's appointment/ No reason is 
assigned for the change, as Hooper's work appears to have 
been satisfactory. Three years later Farmar went insane, 
and Hooper was restored by Montgomerie. In Cosby's 
time James Smith, the provincial secretary, died, and that 
public-spirited governor promptly appointed his son "Billy" 
to act temporarily.-' " Billy " did not, however, receive the 
royal patent which went after an interval to Robert Burnet 
of Perth Amboy.'' 

Both Hunter and Burnet used such influence as they 
had with their friends in the province to secure for 
Montgomerie a favorable reception.* They seem to 
have recognized that the new governor was not a man of 
ability and would need good counsel to avoid mistakes. 
Alexander and the other leaders in the Jerseys appear to 
have been favorably disposed toward Montgomerie. The 
latter, however, showed dislike for the Quakers, accusing 
them in his letters to the home government of being pur- 
posely annoying."' He also showed poor judgment in en- 
deavoring to check the movement to attain a separate exe- 
cutive for New Jersey. This brought him into collision 
with John Kinsey, speaker of the assembly, as well as with 
public opinion.** But Montgomerie was set right in this 
matter by the lords of trade,' and the good feeling which 
had been brought about with so much effort by Hunter and 
Burnet was not seriously disturbed. 

In his executive practice Montgomerie did not depart 
from the lines followed by his predecessor. 

' Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, p. 126. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 321. 

" Liber AAA of Cottimissiotis, June 14, 1734. 

*• New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 179, 233. 

''Ibid., vol. V, p. 235. ^'Ibid.. vol. v, p. 263. 

'Ibid., vol. v. p. 247. 



THE EXECUTIJ'E POWER 



219 



Cosby, however, came into the province under unfavor- 
able circumstances. His conduct in New York caused him 
to be regarded with suspicion. Moreover, he almost at 
once quarreled violently with both Lewis Morris and Alex- 
ander regarding New York affairs.^ He therefore incurred 
their bitter opposition in both provinces. Morris jour- 
neyed to England to present his side of the matter directly 
to the home authorities, while .Vle-xander refused to attend 
council meetings under Cosby and wrote to England bitterly 
attacking him.^ 

In spite of these hindrances Cosby managed to avoid any 
great disturbance in the Jerseys. Apparently, however, he 
srave little attention to their affairs at all, less even than 
Cornbury. He probably entered New Jersey only once 
during the first nine months of his administration. He 
met the assembly only once; performed few executive acts 
and wrote little to the lords upon New Jersey affairs, ex- 
cept in so far as concerned Morris and Alexander. During 
his administration the affairs of the province must have 
been carried on almost entirely by the subordinate executive 
officers. That the province was able to take care of itself 
so successfully, speaks highly for the ability of Hunter and 
Burnet. No serious complaints of maladministration are to 
be met, and, with one exception, the fields of executive work 
seem to have suffered little from Cosby's neglect. But even 
at the end of the administration of Montgomerie Lewis 
Morris had stated to the lords that the militia was in a bad 
and inefficient state, owing to the fact that the fines for 
neglect of military duties were so low and the love of 
" millitary honour " so weak that few men could be found 
who would accept commissions as officers." Nothing was 

'The motives of Cosby certainly seem to have been discreditable. 
'New Jersey Arc/rives, vol. v, p. 360. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 319. 



220 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

done by Cosby to remedy this state of inefficiency. Cosby's 
correspondence strengthens our opinion that he was a place- 
man of low order. His letters attack Alexander and Morris 
in violent and undignified terms, which seem ridiculous when 
it is remembered how prominent they had been in colonial 
affairs.^ The general tone of his correspondence can sug- 
gest only Cornbury and Ingoldsby, of whom Cosby un- 
doubtedly reminded not a few in the colony. 

This hasty survey of the actual work of the chief execu- 
tive during the Union Period makes clear certain facts. 
In the first place it shows how much, as well for the people 
of the colony, the proprietors of the Jerseys, and the home 
government, depended upon the ability and the personality 
of the Governor. In the second place, it indicates the ex- 
tent to which the work of the executive was actually cur- 
tailed by the governing power of the assembly. It is evi- 
dent that governors of New Jersey were in 1738 somewhat 
less limited in this respect than the executives of New York 
and some of the other royal provinces. Lastly, we see that 
whereas New Jersey was at first one of the most trying and 
contentious of all the provinces from the point of view of 
the executive, the ability of Hunter and the good sense of 
Burnet had changed it for the time into a comparatively 
quiet and easily controlled colony. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v. pp. 3J5, 329, 366. 395. 



CHAPTER XII 

The Governor in Legislation 

No statement of the position of the governor in the pro- 
vincial government could be complete which did not include 
his legislative work. The governor had the power to call, 
dissolve, prorogue and adjourn assemblies,^ and during the 
sessions he presided in person over the council which con- 
stituted the upper house. Following the usage of the other 
provinces, which was in turn based upon the precedents of 
the English Parliament, the governor always opened ses- 
sions of the legislature by a speech to the members of the 
two houses. This speech usually stated the purpose of the 
session, recommended certain necessary subjects of legis- 
lation, and made patriotic reference to the benefits received 
from the royal government. The assembly then regularly 
withdrew and went into committee on the governor's speech, 
usually resolving, after brief consideration, what action it 
would take. During the actual work of legislation the gov- 
ernor sometimes communicated with the assembly by mes- 
sages, which Avere entered in the journal. On occasions of 
special importance, he summoned the two houses before him, 
as at the beginning, and addressed them personally. More 
frequently, however, the assembly communicated with the 
governor, requesting privileges, asking him to take action 
in matters like the removal of certain officers and the nam- 
ing of new ones, or asking information as to his views or 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 492, 494. 

221 



222 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

powers. In matters of more serious nature, the house 
sometimes drew up formal addresses or remonstrances to the 
governor, and waited upon him while these were read by the 
speaker. When a bill granting " support " tO' the gO'vern- 
ment was completed, it was the custom for the speaker and 
the house to attend the governor in a body to present it. 
And when the governor at length determined to end the 
session, he always summoned the houses, and, in their pres- 
ence, formally assented tO' the bills which had been passed 
and which met with his approval. There was usually also 
a closing speech by his excellency in which he thanked or 
reproved the assembly as the case might be.^ 

Such from a mechanical point of view was the part played 
by the chief executive in the making of laws. In the extent 
of their influence, however, in the manner in which they ex- 
ercised their power over the assembly, and in their success in 
obtaining the legislation which they desired, there were the 
widest differences among the governors. These differences 
are not always to be readily seen in the assembly and coun- 
cil journals. The opening speeches of nearly all the ses- 
sions read very much alike.' These ask for the legislation 
which the governors are told by their instructions to obtain. 
The two subjects almost always brought forward are the 
support of the government and the reorganization of the 
militia. As to the patriotic utterances, they are too con- 
ventional to have much practical meaning. In many of the 
proceedings of the council and house the governor is hardly 
mentioned. The actual relation of the governor to what is 
going on is, in many cases, to be found only by reading care- 
fully between the lines of the journals and by a study of the 

' Asse!i:bly Journal , passim. 

'■'The plain and businesslike statements of Hunter are somewhat in 
contrast to the speeches of the other governors. 



THE GOVERNOR IN LEGISLATION 



223 



correspondence of the governors and otlier officers with the 
home government. 

It must be remembered, also, that in the actual process of 
legislation the council was scarcely more than the mouth- 
piece of the governor. Disagreements between the council 
and the house were in most cases disagreements between the 
executive department and the assembly. The governor, no 
doubt, often took advice from the leading councillors. 
Nevertheless, the members of the council were in practice 
dependent upon the governor for their places, and could 
be relied upon to do his bidding. To this general state- 
ment there are exceptions, but they are of such nature as 
to prove the rule. Under Lovelace, it cannot be said that 
the governor controlled a majority of the council, for the 
ring of Cornbury was still entrenched there. The adminis- 
tration was too brief, however, to permit of the drawing of 
a serious issue. Hunter's rule began with a direct conflict 
between governor and council. But, as in the case of Love- 
lace, this disagreement occurred because the creatures of the 
former executives were not in sympathy with the new gov- 
ernor. After Hunter had succeeded in expelling his op- 
ponents from the upper house, his control over that body 
was complete. 

The efforts of Cornbury in legislation were a complete 
failure. He was commanded by his instructions to secure 
an act for the support of the government.^ Such act 
was to be unlimited in time, unless there was temporarj' 
need.- He was also ordered to obtain a law securing the 
lands to the proprietors and those who had purchased of 
them. The proprietor's quit-rents and other privileges were 
likewise to be safeguarded. '"* Cornbury was told to obtain 

"^ ilfew Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 513. "-Ibid., vol. ii. p. 515. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 517. 



224 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

an act allowing the solemn declaration of the Friends to 
stand for an oath, similar to that passed in England in 
the reign of William.^ He was also to have an act passed 
for securing discipline in the military forces of the province, 
and was to obtain contributions for the defense of New 
York.^ It was desired that the general assembly should 
restrain by legislation all inhuman severity toward slaves 
and servants.^ An act was tO' be secured insuring to credi- 
tors in England the payment of debts due from persons 
having estates in New Jersey/ 

In not one of these matters did Cornbury succeed in ful- 
filling the wishes of the home authorities, and he was like- 
wise unsuccessful in securing his own personal objects, 
unless the two bribes he is known to have received be con- 
sidered.^ He recommended to the first assembly the rais- 
ing of a support for the government and the confirmation 
of the proprietors' estates.^ At its second meeting he added 
recommendations for a militia act, and for provision for the 
repair of roads, and for the establishing of a beacon on 
.Sandy Hook/ But in his dissatisfaction at the small appro- 
priation offered by the assembly to himself and his friends, 
he prevented, by adjournment, the passage of bills tO' con- 
firm the proprietary estates and for other objects. He then 
broke away from the proprietary party and entered into 
his infamous deal with their opponents. To' obtain his 
ends he excluded upon the flimsiest pretext three reg^ularly 
elected members from the second assembly, thus securing 
for a time an anti-proprietary majority which he hoped 
would do his will.® The assembly did, indeed, grant a some- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 522. "^Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 524, 532. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 532. * Ibid. ''Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 198-219. 

^ Assembly Jotirnal, Nov. 10, 1703. ''Ibid., Sept. 7, 1704. 
* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p, 88. 



THE GOVERNOR IN LEGISLATION 225 

what larger sum to the government for two years. It also 
passed a militia act intended to punish the Quakers, an act 
altering the method of electing the representatives in the in- 
terest of the anti-proprietary party, an act for the laying 
out of highways, and an act for regulating negro and Indian 
slaves.^ But so ill-concealed was the motive in these meas- 
ures that all, even the act of support, were disallowed by 
the home government." 

At the very next session the party of Morris, Jennings 
and Gordon regained control of the assembly. The party 
bitterness was greatly increased by the numerous scandals 
of the administration and the injustice of the courts and 
executive officers, and from this point to the end of his 
rule Cornbury could do nothing with the assembly. Not 
only could he not secure the legislation he recommended, 
but he could not obtain any legislation at all. The rep- 
resentatives occupied themselves with the grievances of the 
province, and the Jerseys were left almost entirely without 
laws. 

The fact that Lovelace succeeded such a person as Corn- 
bury, together with his own high character and reputation, 
gave him much influence with the single assembly which met 
under his governorship. In the line of positive recom- 
mendations Lovelace asked only for support for the gov- 
ernment and a proper militia act,^ and with these sugges- 
tions the house readily complied. The act of support was 
indeed limited to one year, but upon the matter of limited 
grants no assembly ever yielded to a royal governor.* The 

^ Laws Ejiacted in 1704 (Bradford print). 

^AUinson, Statutes of New Jersey; New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, 
p. 324. The act regulating slaves was disallowed because it provided for 
the infliction of an inhuman penalty; New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, 
P- 473- 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 309. 

* Burnet did, however, obtain support for lengthened terms. 



226 THE PROJ'IXCE OF XEIV JERSEY 

governor had. in his set of instructions, been directed to 
alter the method of selecting representatives, so as at the 
same time to prevent the carrying-out of Cornburj^'s scheme, 
and to rectify the faults of the method originally in force. ^ 
The assembly was found very willing to put this instruction 
in the form of an act.' Numerous other laws were passed. 
though there is no evidence that any of them originated 
with the governor or his advisers. 

\\'hether Lovelace could have retained his intiuence or 
not. is of course uncertain. Ingoldsby. owing to his con- 
nection with Cornbury. had at first to combat the hostility 
of the assembly. But, fortunately for him. Colonels Nichol- 
son and \'etch appeared with the royal commands for rais- 
ing troops and supplies for their Canada expedition." and. 
unwilling as the supporters of the proprietors were to coun- 
tenance the lieutenant-governor, they could not disregard 
the wishes of the crown. Ingoldsby undoubtedly secretly 
wished the assembly to reject the recommendations for aid- 
ing the expedition, so that he might cast the blame upon 
the Quakers. Through a shallow trick on the part of tvvo 
anti-proprietary members of the house, at which the clique 
in control of the executive department connived, the bill 
appropriating funds for the expedition was defeated.* But. 
through the efforts of Nicholson and Vetch, the lieutenant- 
governor was virtually compelled to call the assembly again, 
and the recjuired acts were promptly passed, in spite of the 
nominal opposition of the Quakers based upon religious 
principle rather than political feeling. 

A new election, however, resulted in the choice of a house 

^ XeTc Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 318. 2>~S- 
- Allinson. Statutes of Neif Jersey. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii. p. 329 et seq. 

*• Assembly Journal. June 13. 1709; Xew Jersey Archives, vol. i 
p. 470. 



THE GOVERNOR IN LEGISLATION 22/ 

favorably disposed toward the lieutenant-governor. His 
opening speech to the fifth assembly has not been recorded, 
but he secured the passage of an act giving a large part of 
the sum previously appropriated for Lord Lovelace to him- 
self. This act would no doubt have been disallowed but for 
the failure of Ingoldsby and Secretary Basse to send to the 
home authorities the laws passed under Lovelace.' By 
their suspicious negligence the crown was deprived of the 
opportunity of acting on the two measures relating to the 
support of the government separately. Two of the other 
acts passed by the fifth assembly were also greatly in the 
interest of the political faction with which Ingoldsby had 
identified himself.' These were the ".A.cr for ascertaining 
the place of Setting of the Representatives in General As- 
sembly," and the "Act for better Qualifying Representa- 
tives." The former enacted that henceforth sessions of the 
assembly should be held only at Burlington, where Ingoldsby 
and Coxe had much influence.^ The latter act was an ef- 
fort to disqualify Dr. Johnstone. Capt. Farmar, and other 
proprietary leaders.* We have no way of knowing, how- 
ever, how far these measures were the work of the lieutenant- 
governor himself. It is more likely that they were insti- 
gated by Coxe. 

With the advent of Hunter the relations of the governor 
with the legislature became completely changed. Like 
Lovelace, he had from the beginning the support of the 
lower house, in which the proprietary party again domin- 
ated. On the other hand, he encountered at first the oppo- 
sition of the council, who defeated numerous bills which 
had the approval of Hunter.'' Nevertheless, he secured in 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv. pp. 57, 66. 

■Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 411. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 57, 67. 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 67. ''Ibid., vol. iv, p. 51 et seq. 



228 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the very first session an act for the support of the govern- 
ment and an act for the reviving of the militia act, an 
achievement which had been impossible for Cornbury/ By 
his urgent representations to the home authorities, Hunter 
secured, after a tedious delay, the dismissal of the trouble- 
some persons from the council, and henceforth, with the ex- 
ception of one short period, really dominated both houses of 
the legislature. That he succeeded in retaining his influ- 
ence in the legislative branch to the end of his administra- 
tion, affords a high proof pf his skill. He accomplished this 
partly by his friendship with Morris, Gordon, Johnstone 
and Gardiner, the leaders of the dominant proprietary party, 
and partly by the shrewdness he displayed in his actual deal- 
ings with the assembly. Hunter personally never took a 
prominent part in the actual proceedings of the houses; 
he avoided interfering with their deliberations, and was 
willing in every way to consider their prejudices. He re- 
cognized clearly what a governor could not hope to accom- 
plish, and never began a contest in which he was likely to 
meet defeat, even if he had to sacrifice his instructions 
themselves. Yet, indirectly, he gained everything that a 
royal governor could fairly expect, and was a real, though 
quiet, directing force.' 

He obtained without difficulty continuous support for the 
government, and, although all the appropriations were 
limited in time, they were regularly renewed.^ Militia 
bills, placing the forces of the province in a fairly efficient 
state, were also passed and renewed.* The long-delayed 
bill giving to the affirmation of Quakers the full validity 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 64, 65. 

"^Assembly Journal, passim. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 469, 552; vol. xiv, p. ill. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 470, 541. 



THE GOVERNOR IN LEGISLATION 229 

of an oath was another achievement.^ Acts for enforcing 
the collection of taxes, and for enforcing the ordinance es- 
tabhshing fees, met the approval of assembly and governor 
alike.* But it is not in place here to give a full list of all 
the laws advantageous to the executive which resulted 
from Hunter's skill. Enough has been stated to show his 
success in this field. ^ 

Only once was this control of the assembly seriously 
threatened, and that was when, upon the choice of the 
seventh assembly, Col. Daniel Coxe. his great opponent, 
succeeded in controlling a majority. The manner in which 
he was able to overthrow Coxe and his followers, obtain 
their expulsion from the very house they had controlled 
and once more gain control of the assembly, exhibits at the 
same time the governor's shrewdness and the strength of 
his position in the colony.'' Hunter was not over-scrupul- 
ous, it is true, yet he solved a seriouj political difficulty, 
while keeping within legal bounds. 

Burnet was somewhat less fortunate than Hunter in his 
legislative duties. His first meeting with the assembly was 
almost disastrous, owing to the combination which had 
been formed against him by the proprietors, Willocks and 
Johnstone. ° Burnet also used poor judgment, losing his 
temper at the opposition, and interfering continually in the 
deliberations by speeches and messages.® The provocation 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiii, p. 541. 

'^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 552. The latter was a just attack by governor and 
house upon Secretary Basse. It was eventually disallowed. 

'As instances of the feeling of the assembly toward Hunter see two 
of their addresses; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 21, 28. 

* Assembly Jourtial, May 7, 171 6 et seq. 

"New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 56 et seq. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 145-199. 



230 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



was no doubt great, but Hunter would have been more pa- 
tient. The result of the conflict was the total failure of 
legislation/ 

In the later meetings, after Willocks had been chased 
from the Jerseys, Burnet was far more successful. He 
never again failed to obtain the required appropriations 
for support, and actually succeeded in having the grant 
lengthened to five years, a notable victory.- The militia 
was regularly maintained by the legislature, and the penal- 
ties for default made somewhat stricter.^ The act for the 
security of the government, intended to secure the appre- 
hension and punishment of Jacobites, was another im- 
portant gain of the early part of Burnet's administration.* 
Throughout, his wishes were respected by the assembly, and 
his influence was considerable. Yet his control was prob- 
ably never as well secured as that of Hunter. 

Montgomerie's brief experience with the assembly of the 
Jerseys was not altogether happy. In spite of the fact that 
he was favorably regarded, his first session ended in failure, 
because he set himself in opposition to the movement to se- 
cure a complete separation from New York, a matter in 
which the assembly was now much in earnest.^ A second 
meeting gave better results, as Montgomerie secured a 
militia act.** Several other laws were alsO' passed which 
the governor approved, though their nature shows that he 
could hardly have originated them. While the records of 
the journals are not conclusive, we may believe with reason- 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. lO. 

'^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 53, In 1723 he attained an "additional support" 
for ten years; this apparent concession was, however, merely a scheme 
by which the assembly secured paper money. Ibid., vol. v, p. 75. 

^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 54. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 53. 

^Ibid., vol. V, p. 263. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 438. 



THE GOVERXOR IN LEGISLATION 



231 



able certainty that Montgomerie had httle directing influ- 
ence, like that exercised by Hunter and Burnet.' 

Cosby, the last executive of the Union Period, met the 
assembly only once. But in this meeting he was more suc- 
cessful than might have been anticipated from the results 
of his conduct in New York. There was no open conflict, 
and the assembly passed not only a measure for support, 
but also an act enabling creditors to recover debts. ^ What 
might have occurred had Morris remained in New Jersey 
instead of seeking redress in England, is, of course, a mat- 
ter of speculation. 

Taking the part played by the governor in the work of 
legislation as a whole, our study shows that the ofiice was 
respected by the legislative bodies, and that, when the post 
was held by men who sought the welfare of the province, 
they could obtain reasonable measures which did not run 
absolutely counter to colonial views. The extent of the di- 
recting influence possessed by the governor, on the other 
hand, depended upon his political skill and his ability in 
handling men. It must never be forgotten, however, that 
there were certain things which no governor could ever 
persuade the assembly to enact, such as unlimited appro- 
priations, really rigorous militia laws, and contributions 
for the aid of New York.'' The wiser governors made no 
serious effort to secure these things. The general influ- 
ence of Hunter was, no doubt, practically the greatest 
which any executive could have secured. 

'The general character of his relations with the assembly are shown 
in his letter of November 20, 1730; Nerv Jersey Archives. vo\. v, p. 288. 
■Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 501-2. 

'The experience of Burnet and Montgomerie seems also to show the 
impossibility of opposing successfully the demand for bills of credit. 



CHAPTER XIII 
The Movement for a Separate Governor 

The union with New York was never really popular in 
New Jersey, and, from the time it went into effect down 
to the separation in 1738, there were constantly recurring 
efforts to secure a distinct executive. Upon the surrender 
by the proprietors, as has been indicated, an effort was made 
to have Andrew^ Hamilton, the last proprietary governor, 
continued, but he was rejected by the home authorities be- 
cause they held that he had borne too great a part in the 
political struggles of the Jerseys/ If we are to believe 
Lewis Morris, he himself was then considered, and would 
probably have been chosen had it not been for the influence 
of Cornbury. who was desirous of increasing his income by 
obtaining the addition of the Jerseys to the territory over 
which he was to rule.^ It is hardly probable, however, 
that the lords of trade instigated the union with the mere 
purpose of securing gain for the royal governors. There 
was the feeling that the Jerseys were poor and weak, and 
that they could not maintain efficient separate government.' 

At the beginning there seems to have been no popular 
feeling against Cornbury, because he was at the same time 
governor of New York. As feeling developed against the 
corrupt administration of his lordship, however, one of the 
points most emphasized by his opponents was that he re- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 484. 

^Ibid., vol. V, pp. 298. 320; A'ol. ii, p. 474. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 272. 

232 



THE MOJ'EMEXT FOR A SEPARATE GOVERNOR 233 

sided continually in New York and neglected the Jerseys.' 
The fact that Lieutenant-Governor Ingoldsby was stationed 
permanently at Burlington was justly disregarded by the 
leaders of the assembly, as, indeed, he did nothing, and was 
a needless expense." In the great remonstrance of 1707. 
which sums up the chief causes of complaint against Corn- 
bury, the first charge relates to his continued absence. The 
object of the opposition was, however, to get rid of the 
governor and his corrupt ring personally. Centering their 
efforts uppon this, they wisely forbore to demand sweeping 
changes in the constitution of the province, and so the need 
for a separate governor was only hinted at, rather than 
openly asked, during the campaign against Cornbury. It 
is amusing to note that, whereas in 1707 the assembly com- 
plained of Cornbury's continued absence, a later assembly 
declared that they were fully con\-inced that Cornbur)''s 
presence would have been still more hurtful. 

Lovelace was welcomed because his advent put an end 
to Cornbury's power, and Ingoldsby was, of course, not re- 
garded as a permanent executive. But there seems to have 
been no active attempt to secure separation during the in- 
terval before the commissioning of Hunter. The bitter 
party strife in the Jerseys continued to prevent this issue 
from being made prominent. The able rule of Hunter 
gave satisfaction to the proprietors and peace to the pro- 
vince. He had, nevertheless, to combat the hostility of 
such able men as Colonel Coxe, Basse and Sonmans. After 
he had driven them from the council, Coxe, Basse and their 
followers appealed to the people against the governor, and. 
as we have noted, succeeded in gaining for a short time 
control of the assembly. In his efforts to arouse public 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 174, 243. 
'^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. iii, 243. 



234 '^^HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

feeling, Coxa appears to have appealed largely to the pre- 
judices of the churchmen against the Quakers; he also, how- 
ever, began to voice the demand for a separate governor.^ 
This was certainly shrewd politics, for Coxe might hope not 
only to obtain much support on the question, but also to 
cause special annoyance to the governor, who was thus 
threatened in his income. Hunter, however, wrote to the 
lords that he would heartily join with Coxe in his suppli- 
cation, if it were consistent with his duty ; but as it was an 
ill precedent, he would endeavor to put a stop to the 
agitation.^ 

After allowing himself and his followers to be expelled 
from the assembly for non-attendance, Coxe, probably fear- 
ing prosecution, made a journey to England to make direct 
representations against Hunter. As to his conduct in Lon- 
don and what he succeeded in accomplishing we know little, 
except that in the end Hunter was vindicated. Samuel 
Bustall, a friend of Coxe. who accompanied him, wrote 
home, however, that Hunter was to be displaced, and that 
New Jersey was to have a separate administration.^ Un- 
doubtedly Coxe made every effort, though unsuccessfully, 
to accomplish this result. 

The matter of separation did not again come up under 
Hunter, nor do the lords seem to have considered it when 
Burnet was named as governor of New York and New 
Jersey. From the beginning-, Burnet, advised probably by 
Hunter, seems to have understood that the people of New 
Jersey desired a separate governor. In his opening speech 
at the first meeting of the assembly, he assured the members 
that he would give the province a proportional amount of 
his time. In 172 1, in a report upon the condition of New 
Jersey, he assured the lords that the people thought it a 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 233. ^ Ibid. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 263. 



THE MOVEMENT FOR A SEPARATE GOVERNOR 



235 



great hardship to pay a governor who resided in another 
colony, and that they would gladly raise a larger sum for 
a governor of their own, believing that a separation would 
greatly increase the trade and welfare of the province.^ At 
about the same time, when the (luestion of the ownership 
of the islands in the Delaware was being considered by the 
home government, a description of the island of Burling- 
ton, prepared by Daniel Coxe, pointed out that when New- 
Jersey obtained a separate governor the said island w-ould 
lie a highly suitable place for his residence.* 

Since the people of New Jersey enjoyed great prosperity 
and quiet under Burnet, no further active agitation was for 
some time carried on. Vet, during the administration, the 
feeling against having persons in ottices of trust who did 
not reside in the province, strongly developed.' Burnet 
showed wisdom in countenancing this feeling, and one im- 
portant result was the supplanting of Jamison, the chief 
justice, by Trent, a Jer.seyman.* The establishment of an 
agent in London, responsible only to the New Jersey As- 
sembly, was also a noteworthy step, though the object was 
not primarily to obtain a complete separation from New 
York.' In the very last session of Burnet's term, the move- 
ment for a separate executive was. however, renewed by 
the able and ambitious John Kinsey. of Middlesex. Burnet 
succeeded in postponing the matter by holding a conference 
with Kinsey and his friends, in which he told them that he 
could not at that time countenance their demand, and that 
if they persisted he must dissolve the assembly.® They 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v. p. 21. '^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 40. 

* Assembly Jonrnal, Nov. 20, 1723. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. "]"]. 

* Assembly Jourfial, Nov. 25, 1723. 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 262; vol. xiv, p. 355. Burnet in his 



236 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

agreed for the time being, but the matter was henceforth 
regarded as one of the important questions of provincial 
poHtics. 

Montgomerie, though of no great abih'ty, had been 
thoroughly informed of conditions in New Jersey by both 
Hunter and Burnet/ He, however, made the mistake of 
opposing- the strong public opinion regarding separation. 
Kinsey was a controlling element in the assembly, and early 
in its first session under the new executive, it voted that 
having a distinct government would be advantageous 
to the colon}-. It then proceeded to consider the best means 
of obtaining one, and named a committee to ask the governor 
and council for their cooperation and a conference. They 
were to inform Montgomerie that it was not their desire to 
cause him the least uneasiness, but merely to perform what 
they believed tO' be a duty.^ But Montgomerie would make 
no terms. As soon as he learned of the action of the house, 
lie laid the matter before the council, and as a result adjourned 
the assembly. Soon after he dissolved it. It writing home 
■ in regard to the matter, Montgomerie stated that, since the 
assembly had made no mention of addressing the crown, he 
regarded their action as disrespectful to the king. The 
lords of trade, however, very properly took a different view 
of the affair, and replied that, though the manner in which 
the assembly proceeded might have been indiscreet, they 
did not think that subjects, especially when met in assembly, 
should be discouraged from appealing to the crown.^ This 

speech to his last assembly urged that an official residence be provided 
in New Jersey for the governor, but no action was taken. Burnet and 
Hunter had maintained houses at their own expense at Amboy. 

' Morris said, however, that Montgomerie expected a much greater 
income from New Jersey than he received; A'ezv Jersey Archives, vol. 
V, p. 315- 

''■ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 398-9. ' Ibid., vol. v, p. 247. 



THE MOVEMENT FOR A SEPARATE GOVERNOR 237 

answer evidently frightened the governor, for he made haste 
to reply that the leaders of the assembly had carried on their 
plans at secret meetings and had refused to work openly, 
and that he had acted according to the advice of his coun- 
cil.^ Warned by the advice of the lords, Montgomerie as- 
sumed a different attitude toward the newly elected assembly. 
The change was fortunate, as Kinsey was chosen speaker, 
thus showing that he controlled a majority of the house. 
An understanding was now probably arrived at between the 
governor and the speaker, and, by permission of Mont- 
gomerie, Kinsey prepared an address to the crown setting 
forth the advantages of a distinct government. This ad- 
dress was promptly voted by the house and transmitted to 
England by the governor himself. The address stated briefly 
that, as the governor resided in New York, the affairs of that 
province necessarily occupied most of his time, and applica- 
tion to him was difficult. The same thing applied also to 
other officers, who not only lived in New York, but spent 
their salaries there. The people of New Jersey were well 
pleased with Montgomerie, but honestly believed that a 
separate government would be an advantage." 

The unexpected death of Montgomerie led to more vig- 
orous action for separation. When Morris, as president of 
the council, took over the administration, an address was 
presented to him by his council, setting forth the evils of the 
absence of the governor in New York, and advocating an 
independent government.^ A copy of this address was sent 
to the Duke of Newcastle, and his friendly intervention with 
the king was asked by Richard Partridge, now the agent of 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 268-269. 
"^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 270. 

^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 296. The student cannot help feeling that this ad- 
dress may have been instigated by Morris himself. 



238 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

New Jersey/ A little later President Morris wrote per- 
sonally tO' Newcastle advocating separation." As usual, 
his letter is able and gives a clear idea as to the situation. 
Morris said that it was undoubtedly the desire of the greater 
part of the people to have separation. But many were in- 
different, and those living near New York were opposed. 
One of the most popular arguments used was that, if New 
Jersey had a governor of her own. many of the merchants 
of NcAv York and Philadelphia would settle there, and thus 
increase the trade of the province. But Morris himself 
was uncertain as to this, as New York and Pennsylvania 
had much the better of them in trade. Morris, however, 
believed that the addition of New Jersey to New York 
meant more to prospective governors in London than to ac- 
tual governors in America. Their expense in attending to 
it would be as much as their profits. Finally, the president 
of the council admitted that the people of the Jerseys really 
wished a redivision of the province into East and West 
Jersey.^ But. though each part was anxious to- obtain the 
governor's residence, if a separate governor came, neither 
part had a house for the governor or anything for this en- 
tertainment except an inn. The jealousy of the divisions 
might even defeat all suitable provision for the governor. 

Morris also pointed out that an able man would be neces- 
sary to control the assertive assembly of New Jersey, and 
closed his communication by modestly recommending him- 
self for the post. The wishes of the leaders and people of 
the Jerseys, however, did not prevail immediately against 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 303. -Ibid., vol. v, p. 314 et seq. 

'The substitution by Hunter, upon the request of the assembly, of sep- 
arate treasurers for East and West Jersey for a single provincial treas- 
urer may be an indication of this feeling; Assembly Journal, Feb. 4, 
1718-19. 



THE MOVEMENT FOR A SEPARATE GOVERNOR 



239 



tlie influence of Cosby, who was forthwith commissioned as 
governor of both New York and New Jersey. Under the 
conditions of the old colonial system it was indeed difficult 
to secure any changes of existing institutions without con- 
tinued effort. It may be noted that the bitter animosity 
between Morris and Cosby may not have been altogether 
disconnected with the attempt of the former to obtain a 
commission for New Jersey. 

Cosby, in his opening speech, expressed his earnest desire 
to divide his time between the two provinces.^ But it ap- 
pears that he paid less heed to the affairs of New Jersey 
than any governor since Cornbury. During the single ses- 
sion of the assembly held during his rule, however, no for- 
mal action was taken to secure separation so far as the 
governorship went. The house did present an address 
to Cosby representing the need of appointing as members 
of the council and other important officers only such as were 
actually residents. To this prayer Cosby replied favorably." 
Later in the work of the assembly the governor thought it 
necessary to reprove the house for its slowness, and to ad- 
journ it for a short recess. In his speech on this occasion, 
he said he knew their desire to obtain a distinct government, 
and was willing to do all in his power to remove difficulties, 
implying, of course, that the members were showing ingrati- 
tude.^ The death of Cosby occurred, however, before any- 
thing further was accomplished. 

It now seemed to be the common understanding that a 
separation would be effected. Almost the first act of 
Colonel John Anderson, the new president of the council, 
was to transmit to Newcastle a petition to the king praying 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 477. 

"^ Assembly Journal, May 18, 1733. 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 481. 



240 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



for a separate governor, signed by himself, the council and 
divers members of the assembly/ The agitation was then 
actively taken up by Richard Partridge, the agent, w^ho sub- 
mitted another petition and a representation based upon 
the former communication of Lewis Morris,^ and who fol- 
lowed this by a further detailed statement of reasons for 
the separation of New Jersey from New York/ The want 
of a separate governor, he said, ruined the trade of New 
Jersey, abated the price of land, and depopulated the pro- 
vince. As there was no naval officer, no vessel could be 
registered without going to New York, and from some 
places that cost £10. Acts for preserving timber could 
not be enforced, lest they prejudice the trade of New 
York. The consumption of provisions and manufactures 
'' from hence " would be greater if the governor and all 
officers were residents of the Jerseys. People in Europe 
would not settle in a province which was dependent. All 
judges and other officers had to be attended at New York, 
and this also robbed New Jersey of the sums paid them. 
No application could be made to them upon sudden occasion 
without great expense, and sometimes not then. As the 
governor lived in New York, he seldom held councils in 
New Jersey, and hence writs of error from the supreme 
court sometimes lay a year without attention. The militia 
could not be disciplined, because the officers lived without 
the province. The judges countenanced the New York 
lawyers, who carried away all the business. The troubles 
of New Jersey were not understood in New York. The 
officers in New York gave no security, and, hence, were in 
no danger of punishment if they did wrong. The coun- 
cillors at New York, having the governor's ear, recom- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 523; vol. v, p. 441. 
^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 448. '^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 451. 



THE MOVEMENT FOR A SEPARATE GOVERNOR 24I 

mended to office persons who were scarcely known in New 
Jersey. The governor, moreover, conld hardly be expected 
to pass bills affecting the interests of New York. New 
Jersey was entirely ready to support her own administration. 
Many Palatines and others would not settle in New Jersey, 
because they had been ill-treated by the governor of New 
York. If there were a separate government, it would pre- 
vent much trouble to the people of New Jersey who were 
loyal to the crown. The trade of the colony would increase, 
and that would help England, as more people would be 
employed in making naval stores. Though the agent in his 
zeal undoubtedly overstated the facts, and though his ill- 
assorted and ill-arranged reasons are based largely upon 
the economic theories of mercantilism, there was, neverthe- 
less, sufficient truth at the bottom of nearly all his state- 
ments to prove his main contention. 

Meanwhile, Sir William Keith had applied for the separ- 
ate governorship of New Jersey and added his efforts to 
those of Partridge.^ 

But in the colony the attention of the political leaders 
had meanwhile been diverted by the unseemly contest be- 
tween Hamilton and Morris for the presidency of the coun- 
cil. This contention ended in the recognition of the former, 
who was ordered to preserve order until the arrival of Lord 
Delaware, who was to be commissioned as joint governor 
of New York and New Jersey." The astonishing decision 
of the home authorities to continue the union was, however, 
not final. Upon more mature consideration it was de- 
cided to grant to New Jersey the distinct administration 
she had so long desired, and this concession was followed 
by the further one of naming Lewis Morris as her first in- 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 435, 446, 450. 
^Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 490, 491 (note). 



242 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



dependent governor. Though his recent conduct had been 
found unwarrantable/ Morris was certainly entitled to the 
place by his long experience in New Jersey affairs, as well 
as by his undoubted ability. Only later results could show 
that, after all, he lacked some of the qualifications needed 
for a successful executive. 

The demand of New Jersey was certainly a just one, in 
the light of her growth in population and wealth. Its re- 
cognition was proof that the home government was desir- 
ous of benefiting the province by every proper means con- 
sistent with the political and economic theories of the time. 
But the delay and trouble in carrying the matter through, 
as usual, must have given the colonists the impression that 
the concession was made grudgingly and hesitatingly. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 480-1. 



CHAPTER XIV 
Other Executive Officers 

When the royal government was instituted over New 
Jersey, Richard Ingoldsby was commissioned as lieutenant- 
governor under Lord Cornbury.^ He held a similar posi- 
tion, also, in New York. The object of creating a lieute- 
nant-governor appears to have been to provide a capable 
substitute for the chief executive in that one of the united 
provinces from which it was necessary for him to be ab- 
sent. It must have been thought, therefore, that Ingoldsby 
should devote himself especially to New Jersey. The 
lieutenant-governor was, of course, to succeed the governor 
in case of his death or absence. From the beginning, how- 
ever, the arrangement worked poorly. The selection of 
an ambitious office-seeker like Ingoldsby was a mistake 
second only to the appointment of Cornbury himself. Corn- 
bury was, moreover, suspicious of Ingoldsby.^ For this sus- 
picion there was some reason, for Cornbury's conduct was 
of such character that it was highly dangerous for him that 
any one, especially a possible successor, should be closely 
informed as to the nature of his acts. 

Trouble began as early as November, 1704. At this time 
Ingoldsby, though on his way to Burlington, was at New 
York City. Cornbury was at Burlington, attending a ses- 
sion of the New Jersey assembly. A letter arrived from 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 22. 
'New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. tio, 145. 

243 



244 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the frontier addressed to the governor, and Ingoldsby, be- 
lieving it to be of importance, summoned the council at New- 
York, and opened it. He then forwarded a translation to 
Cornbury/ For this act he was sharply rebuked by his 
superior, who declared that Ingoldsby knew that he was 
stationed at Burlington, and that his presence at New 
York was accidental.- Ingoldsby then proceeded to Bur- 
lington where he remained. A little later, upon applica- 
tion, he gave a pass to an Indian chief to visit New York. 
At this step Cornbury was again displeased, and told the 
lieutenant-governor that he had exceeded his authority. 
Ingoldsby then asked for instructions, but Cornbury gave 
none, saying that he should not act at all.^ 

Ingoldsby, who seemed to have been chagrined at his lack 
of power, wrote in November, 1705, to the lords of trade 
complaining of Cornbury's treatment and asking instruc- 
tions.* But the home government, upon consideration of 
the matter, decided that the existing arrangement was a 
cause of confusion. Ingoldsby's commission as lieutenant- 
governor of New York was therefore ordered revoked." 
He was, however, at the same time appointed a member 
of the council of New Jersey, to which he had not pre- 
viously belonged.^ Thereafter he remained stationed per- 
manently at Burlington, representing Cornbury in a sense, 
though performing no important acts of government.'' The 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 67, no. 

'^ Ibid., vol. iii, p, 68. ''Ibid., vol. iii, p. in. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 109. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 145. It does not appear, however, that the order 
was signed by the queen; ibid., vol. iii, p. 469. 

^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 145. 

''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 98. Ingoldsby issued some licenses, the most im- 
portant of which is one to George Willocks and partners to purchase 
land of the Indians in West Jersey up to the amount of their proprie- 
tary shares; liber AAA of Commissions , p. 90. He also declared Mr. 
Moore suspended from the ministry, and Cornbury approved the act. 



OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 



245 



lieutenant-governor would have been, indeed, an expensive 
ornament for New Jersey, had it not been for the wisdom 
of the assembly in refusing to grant any funds whatever 
for the support of Cornbury and his corrupt crew. 

In spite of what had passed between Cornbury and In- 
goldsby, the latter became an important member of the 
clique supporting the tyranny of the governor. He signed 
the council's address to the Crown in favor of Cornbury 's 
course, and was in general a subservient tool. Yet, in 
spite of the fact that Ingoldsby had been deprived of all au- 
thority, Cornbury did not hesitate to declare, in reply to 
that part of the famous assembly protest of 1707, which 
complained of his continued absence from the Jerseys, 
that the lieutenant-governor was always in the province to 
do justice to all.^ While at Burlington, Ingoldsby was 
closely associated with Daniel Coxe, Jr., and Basse. With 
them he was prominent in the " Jacobite " church, St. 
Mary's. Nevertheless, on one occasion he was refused the 
sacrament by the brave Mr. Moore." 

During the brief rule of Lovelace Ingoldsby continued 
as lieutenant-governor. He did nothing, however, except 
to give such encouragement as his title afforded to the 
clique of councillors opposing the assembly.^ 

Upon the untimely death of Lovelace, Ingoldsby assumed 
the execution of his commission and instructions as his 
designated successor.* The general character of his ad- 
ministration has already been stated. He called meetings 
of the council and assembly, signed commissions and wrote 
to the home authorities, just as a full governor would have 
done. In his first letter to the lords he asked for a con- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 181. 

^ Hills, History of the Church in Burlington, p. 79. 

•'■New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 364, 390. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 460. 



246 THE PRO -^^CE OF NEW JERSEY 

tinuance of his power as governor upon the ground that he 
had served long in Cornbury's time without recompense/ 
The reply of the lords, however, was to revoke Ingoldsby's 
commission and order him to cease from exercising further 
authority.^ In the light of Ingoldsby's character and ability, 
this was a wise decision. His brief term of power ended 
thus ingloriously. 

A lieutenant-governor was never again appointed for 
New Jersey. The office had proved inconvenient, useless 
and expensive. 

In Cornbury's commission it was stated that in case of 
the death or absence of the governor, if there were no 
lieutenant-governor, the administration should be assumed 
by the council, and the councillor who should at the time 
be residing in the province, and who was named in the in- 
structions before any other councillor, should preside, with 
such powers as should be necessary in those circumstances 
for the carrying on of orderly government.^ But the in- 
structions ordered the council in such cases to forbear all 
acts of authority not immediately necessary, until the ap- 
pointment of the new governor.** By an additional in- 
struction, issued to Cornbury in 1707, a slight change was 
made in the arrangements for the succession. This article 
stated that the oldest councillor, whose name was placed first 
in the instructions, and who was actually residing in the 
province at the time of the absence or death of the gov- 
ernor, should assume the administration until the governor 
returned or the further pleasure of the Crown was known.* 
The office of president of the council was thus rendered 
a little more definite. 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 463. -Ibid., vol. iii, p. 474. 

■^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 500. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 534- 

'^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 170. 



OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 247 

In Cornbury's instructions the name of Edward Hunloke, 
of West Jersey, stood first, and that of Lewis Morris 
second/ Before the council took the oaths, however, Hun- 
loke was dead, and Morris, therefore succeeded to the rights 
of "first named councillor."- Morris was, however, soon 
suspended from the council because of his violent opposition 
to the governor, and, although the lords of trade directed 
Cornbury to restore him upon his making due submission,' 
he did not resume his place until the accession of Lovelace. 
Upon the death of Lovelace and the assumption of power by 
Ingoldsby, the devoted Morris was once more suspended.* 
But his name was again placed first among the councillors 
when Hunter's instructions were drawn.'* 

While Morris was under suspension, the presidency of the 
council fell to William Pinhorne, better known as second 
judge of the supreme court under the administrations of 
Cornbury and Ingoldsby. During the early part of In- 
goldsby's rule, Pinhorne, in the capacity of first named coun- 
cillor, actually presided over several meetings of the coun- 
cil in the absence of the lieutenant-governor." 

But from the arrival of Hunter until his death, the pre- 
sidency of the council was held continuously by Lewis 
Morris. The fact that such an able, well-known and in- 
fluential person held the position, undoubtedl}'' added some- 
thing to the importance of its honorary value, while, con- 
versely, the fact that he was president increased the pres- 
tige of Morris. 

Yet, Morris, with all his excellent qualities, appears to 
have been a little vain, and to have assumed a dignity as 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 507. 
''Ibid., vol. iii, p. i. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 124, 349. 

'•Ibid., vol. iii, p. 464. "Ibid., vol. iv, p. 2. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 340, 350, 351 et seq. 



248 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

president of the council which the actual importance of the 
office hardly justified. This attitude at times excited the 
ridicule of Morris' enemies, as when, upon the arrival of 
Lovelace, Morris presented a personal address of congratu- 
lation and approval to the new governor.^ 

Owing to the presence of the lieutenant-governor and the 
brief interval between the retirement of Ingoldsby and the 
arrival of Hunter, the actual administration of the province 
does not seem to have been assumed by the president of the 
council until 1719, during the period between the with- 
drawal of Hunter and the arrival of Burnet. During this 
interval Morris deemed it necessary to summon several 
meetings of the council and to take up some rather im- 
portant business.^ Steps were taken to enforce the col- 
lection in Burlington and Hunterdon counties of the tax re- 
quired by the act for the support of the government.^ The 
council insisted that the treasurers of the province should 
have security, and when Basse was unable to do so, accepted 
his resignation.* The accounts of Gordon, the late pro^ 
vincial treasurer, were audited and found satisfactory.' 
Two rather important communications were received from 
the home authorities and read.® Petitions from the pro- 
prietors were received, but were put over for future action.' 
Morris was, however, authorized to press the president and 
council of New York relative to the running of the boundary 
line between the provinces which had been provided for by 
recent acts of the assembly.^ Morris also issued commis- 
sions naming Isaac Decowe as treasurer of West Jersey, in 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 380, 381. 

'* Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 116 et seq. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 116, 118, 128; vol. iv, p. 400. 

*■ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 117, 127, 135. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 119 et seq. 

* Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 129 et seq. 'Ibid., vol. iv, p. 408. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 134; vol. iv, pp. 446, 448. 



OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 249 

room of Basse,' and appointing military officers. When 
his power in the latter field was denied by ]Major Josiah 
Ogden, the attorney-general was directed to prosecute 
him.* Morris, in fact, ventured to do nearly everything 
that a governor would do except to call the assembly. Yet 
as New Jersey was without a governor from August, 17 19, 
to September, 1720, he probably did no more than was 
necessary. 

As Montgomerie arrived in the province before Burnet 
retired, the power of the president of the council did not 
reappear in 1728. Upon Montgomerie's death, however, 
there was another interregnum, and Morris again assumed 
the administration.^ This second presidency lasted from 
July, 1 73 1, to August, 1732, when Cosby arrived. No 
very important steps were taken during this period. A pro- 
clamation was issued continuing all military and civil officers 
until further notice. ■* But two sheriffs soon had to be 
removed upon charges brought against them.° A letter 
was received frc^m the president of New York relating 
to French encroachments," but the council of New Jersey 
would merely say that they doubted not but that the king, 
if he were properly informed, would take proper steps. 
They were unwilling that the agent of New Jersey should 
join in making representations on the subject until they 
knew definitely what was to be solicited.'^ Morris also 
proclaimed the disallowance by the Crown of three acts 
of the assembly.** 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 135; lider AAA of Commissions. 

''Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 137, 138, 139. 

"^ Ibid. , vol. xiv, p. 455 et seq. 

*Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 455. •'Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 457, 458. 

''Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 462. 'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 467. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 469. 



250 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



During Montgomerie's administration, the movement for 
a separate governor had made great headway. While act- 
ing as president, Morris wrote to the Duke of Newcastle 
an able letter on the subject, which gave a very fair-minded 
account of the feeling in the province, and argued in favor 
of separation from New' York/ Morris had been told that 
the duke had recommended him as governor in case of 
separation, and, though he said that he was not vain enough 
to ask for such a favor, yet he must state that at the time 
of the surrender he had been regarded by Queen Anne as 
not without merit. The home government had, however, 
not yet made up its mind to the step, and Cosby succeeded, 
by his influence, in obtaining commissions for both New 
York and New Jersey. 

As we have previously seen, the jealous and avaricious 
Cosby violently attacked Morris, removed him from the 
post of chief justice of New York, and urgently recom- 
mended that he be removed from the council of New Jersey. 
To meet this attack, Morris made a journey to England, 
and eventually succeeded in obtaining a decision in his 
favor. Before he had returned, however, Cosby was dead. 
The presidency of the council was therefore assumed by 
John Anderson, of Monmouth, as the oldest councillor, 
named first in the instructions, and then in the province.' 
Anderson was a Scot who had many years before com- 
manded a ship in the imfortunate Darien enterprise, and 
who, upon its failure, removed to New Jersey,' where he 
had long been prominent. Anderson and the council con- 
tinued all existing officers.* and sent a petition to the king 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 314. This letter was written after 
an address on the .subject had been presented to Morris by the council. 
^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 521. 'Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 156, 179. 

* Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 521. 



OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 



251 



asking a separate government.^ But a few days later 
Anderson himself died. The presidency was then assumed 
by Colonel John Hamilton." Hamilton had been for some 
time a power in the Jerseys. He was the son and heir of 
Andrew Hamilton, the last proprietary governor, and him- 
self a prominent member of the Perth Amboy group of 
proprietors of East Jersey. Upon the withdrawal of 
Morris, he had been elected his successor as president of 
the proprietary council of East Jersey. As to his ability, 
we have little means of judging, though his leadership of 
the proprietary interests hardly appears to have been suc- 
cessful. He is. however, highly spoken of by contem- 
poraries.' 

Soon after Hamilton's accession, Lewis Morris arrived 
in Boston, and immediately put forward his claims to the 
administration. The result was a contest between Hamil- 
ton and Morris for the power, which was scarcely creditable 
to either. Hamilton took the ground that Morris, by ab- 
senting himself from the province without leave, had nulli- 
hed his right to the presidency and even to a seat in the 
council. Further, he was not a resident of New Jersey, 
even if he did maintain a house there, and in any case was 
not residing in New Jersey when Cosby died, as he was in 
England. Therefore, when Morris appeared in the coun- 
cil and demanded recognition. Col. Hamilton refused to 
turn over the administration, and was supported by a 
majority of the council.* Morris maintained that he had 
been recognized by the home authorities as president of 
the council, and as proof produced an additional instruc- 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 441. "^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 527. 

'Whitehead, Contribiitions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, p. 
168. Hamilton is best known as the first deputy past master general of 
the colonies. 

*■ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 538-543. 



25- 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



tion addressed to him under that title.^ When refused 
recognition by the council, he proceeded to issue two procla- 
niatio'ris as president, one adjourning the assembly still fur- 
ther, and the other setting forth his additional instruction" 
which related to the form of the prayer to be used for the 
royal family." Hamilton forthwith issued a counter proc- 
lamation, ordering all persons to pay no heed to Morris' 
claims and authorizing his arrest." Both Morris and Ham- 
ilton, meanwhile, appealed to the liome authorities.* But 
the lords of trade decided in favor of Hamilton, and held 
Morris' conduct unwarrantable and improper.^ In June, 
1737, the lords of trade wrote to Hamilton stating that 
Lord Delaware had been named as governor of New York 
and New Jersey, and would sail with all speed. They de- 
sired him to maintain tranquillity until his arrival." All 
this time, however, the work for a separate governor had 
been continued, and it was at length successful. Upon the 
resignation of Delaware, Lewis Morris was appointed gov- 
ernor of New Jersey in spite O'f what had occurred. But 
until the arrival of his commission Hamilton retained 
control. 

Under Hamilton's presidency, the council was occupied 
largely with the quarrel with Morris. Yet other necessary 
business was, of course, performed. Warrants were signed," 
and the royal approval of certain acts was entered in the 
council journal.^ Complaints against the sheriff of Hun- 
terdon County were considered, and he was removed for 
misconduct.** The ordinance for the sitting of the supreme 

' A''ew Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 538. "^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 464. 

* Ibid., vol. v, p. 469. ^Ibid , vol. v, pp. 455, 467, 472, 478, 481. 

^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 479. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 490. 

''Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 528-9, 535- 555- 

"^ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 530, 545. -'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 535. 



OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 253 

court was altered as to the dates. ^ On October 29, 
1736, however, the council, considering the smallness of 
their number and the remoteness of their habitations from 
each other, requested the president not to call them again 
except in urgent need, but advised him to issue procla- 
mations and to take all other steps to preserve the royal 
authority.- 

Several later meetings were nevertheless held, in which 
matters of some weight were taken up. Complaints were 
made as to vexatious suits in the courts. It was held that 
this was due to the long credit given to the practicing at- 
torneys, and an ordinance was, therefore ordered prohibit- 
ing such long credit, and ordering the judges to make proper 
rules to enforce the decision.'' Upon petition of the people 
of the county, it was ordered that justices of the peace 
and military officers be named for Hunterdon.* During 
the year 1737, however, only four council meetings were 
held. The council met three times in 1738, under the pre- 
sidency of Hamilton. It thus appears that during this in- 
terval few executive acts were performed, as the president 
of the council never took any important step without the 
approval of his fellow councillors. When affairs ran so 
smoothly without a governor, it is not surprising that at 
least some people in the Jerseys regarded the support of the 
royal officials as rather onerous. 

The only strictly provincial offices in the Jerseys which 
were held by royal patent were those of provincial secretary 
and attorney-general. ° The history of these offices during 
our period certainly carries out the statement of Burnet, 
that " patent offices appointed in Great Britain are gener- 
ally unwelcome to the plantations." 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 538. '^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 544. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 547. *^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 553. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 452; vol. v, p. 22. 



^54 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



The post of secretary was first obtained by Jeremiah 
Basse, in spite of counter efforts oi Peter Sonmans.' Basse 
took a leading part in various acts of maladministration dur- 
ing the rule of Cornbury and Ingoldsby. Upon the acces- 
sion of Hunter, however, he came into conflict with 
the chief executive, who was evidently unwilling to sus- 
pend him, because of his position as a patent officer. To 
punish him the assembly passed and the governor ap- 
proved, in March, 171 3-14, three acts greatly reducing his 
fees. These were " an act for shortening lawsuits and re- 
gulating the practice of the law," " an act for enforcing the 
ordinance for establishing fees," and " an act for acknowl- 
edging and recording of deeds and conveyances of land in 
each county of this province." " 

When, however, the home authorities, listening to the 
complaints of Hunter, gave James Smith the royal patent, 
these acts were not repealed.^ Smith naturally represented 
the case to the lords of trade, and eventually, in April, 
1722, Governor Burnet laid before the council a letter from 
that body, directing him to move the assembly to repeal the 
acts. The governor, therefore, submitted a bill prepared 
by the chief justice to accomplish the required result.* This 
bill, with the letter from the board of trade, was sent down 
tO' the assembly,"^ but the latter body would not pass it. Bur- 
net, nevertheless, foiled an attempt made by the house, at 
the instigation of his enemy Willocks, to enact a bill requir- 
ing the secretary to give a security which he regarded as 
ruinous.® 

In 1 72 1 the three acts interfering with Smith's emolu- 
ments had been, however, disallowed by the crown. ^ 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, pp. 23, 26. '^ Ibid. , vol. xiii, pp. 541, 552. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 225. * Ibid, vol. xiv, p. 226. 

'^ Assembly Journal , May 3, 1722. 

*" New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 220; vol. v, p. 32. 

'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 240. 



OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 255 

But in 1728, after Burnet and his assembly had come into 
entire agreement, the governor himself consented to the 
reenacting of the bills for " shortening of lawsuits " and 
" concerning the acknowledging and registering of deeds, 
etc." ^ At the same time £25 per annum was voted to 
Smith as a compensation. He accepted this sum as the 
best tiling he could obtain at the time. 

But when Montgomerie succeeded to the administration, 
the secretary memorialized the lords of trade again, de- 
claring that Burnet had acted from motives of personal 
gain, and that he had coerced Smith.- In 1731 the 
troublesome laws were once more disallowed by the king 
in council." In spite of this second disallowance, an effort 
was made to repass the measures under Cosby,* and " an 
act for the better enforcing an ordinance made for estab- 
lishing fees " was actually passed." But this measure, too. 
was again vetoed by the crown.* 

In spite of his efforts to prevent the cutting down of the 
income of his office, James Smith seems to have been a re- 
spectable person. He appears, however, to have turned his 
post into a sinecure, residing regularly at Philadelphia, and 
executing his duties through two deputies.^ 

Alexander Griffith, the attorney-general under Cornbury, 
also held a royal patent.* He was, however, eventually 
suspended by Hunter for endeavoring to shield Sonmans and 
other confederates of Cornbury's clique, in direct disregard 
of the orders of the governor in council.® Gordon was then 
named as commissioner to execute the office. The later at- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 388-389. ^/dtd., vol. v, p. 198. 
^Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 471. 472. * Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 478, 479. 

"Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 502. *Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 515. 

''Ibid., vol. v, p. 321. *Ibid.. vol. xiii, p. 302. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 561. 



256 l^iiE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

torneys-general were Basse, Alexander, Lawrence Smyth, 
and Joseph Warrell. 

Besides these strictly provincial officers, there were also 
several royal appointees whose powers extended over all or a 
considerable part of the colonies, who exercised duties in the 
Jerseys. Such were the surveyor-general of customs and 
the surveyor-general of His Majesty's Woods. In the 
former office Colonel Robert Ouary was especially active 
under Cornbury, Lovelace and Hunter. Perhaps the bad 
reputation of the Jerseys for smuggling may account for 
this activity. 

Customs officers were, of course, maintained in the colony. 
John White was the first collector of customs at Amboy,^ 
while John Jewell was surveyor of customs for all West 
Jersey.^ These officers had full power to examine goods, 
collect duties and make seizures, yet the control of a single 
surveyor of customs for each division could not have been 
very effective. All the officers appear, however, to have 
been assisted by deputies. The earlier commissions were 
given directly by the commissioners of the customs in Eng- 
land, but the later ones were from Quary and other colonial 
surveyors-general. But, after all, there were fewer officers 
representing the royal power directly in the Jerseys than in 
several of the other provinces. New Jersey was a small 
province, and not at all liberal in the payment of her offi- 
cials. There was apparently no very urgent demand in 
London for appointment to executive offices there. 

Among the offices regularly commissioned by the gov- 

' John White was succeeded by Thomas Farmar. In 1710 Farmer was 
suspended and Henry Swift named. 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 9. In 1732 John Norton was named 
as collector of " the port of Salem " in room of John Rolfe, deceased. 
Rolfe, the successor of Jewell, had been commissioned as collector of 
customs for "the western division." 



OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 



257 



ernors, several were judicial or semi-judicial. Such were 
the chief justice, the second judge and other associate pro- 
vincial judges, the county judges of the pleas, commis- 
sioners of oyer and terminer, and the justices of the peace. 
Besides these, the governors named the receivers-general 
or treasurers, as they later come to be almost exclusively 
called, the sheriffs, and the officers of the militia. Persons 
were also commissioned to execute the office of attorney 
general when no royal patent had been issued.^ The duties 
of several of these officers, and the changes in the character 
of their posts, will be treated more fully in the chapters 
relating to the several departments of the administration. 

As in practically all the provinces, there were certain com- 
missioners exercising what were practically executive func- 
tions, who were named in acts of assembly, and who were 
responsible to the legislative branch rather than to the gov- 
ernor. Such were the comm"ssioners for laying out high- 
ways, the commissioners for signing the bills of credit, and 
the tax collectors of the several counties and localities. 

It must be remembered, too, that certain very important 
administrative officers were agents of the proprietors. 
Among these were the surveyors-general of the two divis- 
ions, the proprietary registers, and the receiver-general of 
quit-rents of East Jersey. The continued existence of the 
proprietorship under the royal rule is, of course, one of the 
distinguishing features of the system of New Jersey, as com- 
pared with those of other royal provinces. 

In accordance with the governor's instructions, the com- 
missions of the subordinate officers were unlimited as to time, 
that they might be more fearless in the execution of their 
duties.^ The sheriffs were, however, named each year. Yet, 

'It appears that Gordon, Basse, Alexander and Lawrence Smyth all 
acted on commissions from the gov^ernors alone. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 518-19. 



258 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

owing to the political conditions of the Jerseys, removals 
were rather frequent. After the overthrow of Cornbury's 
clique, the higher officers appear to have been fairly honest 
and efficient, and several, like Alexander, Hooper and 
James Smith, had long terms. But among the holders of 
the lesser posts some were amazingly careless and corrupt. 

It has already been made apparent that there was a ten- 
dency to concentrate several offices in the same hands. The 
members of Cornbury's council were practically all named 
as associate provincial or county judges and as militia offi- 
cers. Basse was not only provincial secretary, but clerk of 
the council, clerk of the supreme court and deputy collector 
of customs. James Alexander was attorney general and 
surveyor-general of both Jerseys. James Smith had not 
only the posts held by Basse, but also the proprietary regis- 
tership. But this monopoly of office by rings of prominent 
persons was a common, perhaps, indeed, a necessary feature, 
of all American provincial government. 



CHAPTER XV 
The Council — Personnel 

One great source of strength in the council of the pro- 
\ince of New Jersey undoubtedly lay in the character of the 
men who composed it. The advisers of the crown certainly 
tried to select the most able and influential persons for mem- 
bership, and. speaking in general, they did so, though their 
intentions were at times thwarted by the misrepresentations 
of such governors as Cornbury and Cosby. 

As soon as it became certain that the proprietors intended 
to surrender the government of the Jerseys to the crown, a 
struggle began regarding the constitution of the council. 
This conflict was between the majority share-owners of the 
two Jerseys, called by their opponents the " Scotch and 
Quaker factions," and the minority party in East Jersey, 
led by Dockwra. and supported by the Coxe interest and 
its allies in West Jersey.^ Neither party won a complete 
victory, though the controling element in proprietary affairs 
was scarcely as fully recognized as it might fairly have been 
expected to be. Six of the twelve members of the council, 
as named in Cornbury's instructions,^ were prominent pro- 
prietors — Hunloke, Morris, Jennings, Davenport, Leonard, 
and Deacon. Of these Morris. Jennings and Davenport 
were especially unacceptable to the anti-proprietary party. 
Moreover. Hunloke. as first named, would preside over the 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. ii, pp. 417, 429, 430, 487, 502. 
Ibid., vol. ii, p. 507. 

259 



26o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

council in case of the absence of the governor and h'entenant- 
governor, while Morris was next in the Hne of succession.^ 
On the other hand, the council contained Andrew Bowne/ 
Sandford and Pinhorne of East Jersey, and Revell and 
Leeds of West Jersey, who were all more or less out of sym- 
pathy with the proprietors, or at least with the " Scotch and 
Quaker interest." Robert Quary, who, as surveyor-general 
of customs, was included in the council from the beginning, 
also showed antagonism to the proprietors.^ Walker, the 
remaining member, took no decided stand. Thus the mal- 
contents were sure to have their side of the case well rep- 
resented, and, if fortune favored, might easily control the 
policy of the upper house. 

Two of the council were of unusual ability, a rather dan- 
gerous quality in members of a body the work of which 
was largely advisory. These were Lewis Morris and 
Samuel Jennings, the ex-governor of West Jersey, whose 
characters and earlier careers have already been considered. 
The rest were men of ordinary stamp. Andrew Bowne, of 
Monmouth County, had taken a very active part in the 
affairs of East Jersey, figuring as a supporter of Basse and 
the bitter foe of the proprietors. For a time, during the 
absence of Basse, he had been deputy governor of East 
Jersey.* But he was now too old for active work.® 
Francis Davenport was a leading Friend, who had been at 
one time president of the council of proprietors of West 
Jersey. Daniel Leeds had been one of the chief agents of 
Coxe, and later of the West Jersey Society, and was for a 
time surveyor-general of the Western Division. But he was 
an unscrupulous tool of Coxe. William Sandford, of Bergen 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 170; vol. ii, p. 500. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 327, 385. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 544; vol. iii, p. 15 etc. 

*Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 267. 'Ibid., vol. iii, pp. i, 155. 



THE COUNCIL-PERSONNEL 261 

County, and William Pinhorne. of Snake Hill, were laro-e 
landowners of East Jersey, and men of fair character and 
attainments. Pinhorne had, however, formerly played a 
prominent part in the politics of New York, and had been 
dismissed from a judgeship by Bellomont for alleged mis- 
conduct.^ Hunloke and Leonard were respected, but both 
died before they entered upon office.^ Quary was a zealous 
and honest official, whose character was esteemed even by 
his opponents in New Jersey.-* Jennings, Davenport and 
Deacon were Quakers, and the Crown deserves credit 
for including them. Hunloke and Leonard were zealous 
"sticklers for Quakers." * 

The death of Hunloke and Leonard was a stroke of for- . 
tune for the anti-proprietary party, as it gave them a ma- 
jority. Neither party could, however, hope to control the 
council without the support of Cornbury. From the be- 
ginning his lordship showed his suspicion of the Quakers, 
for at the first meeting he actually entertained, in spite of 
the explicit wording of his instructions, objections to quali- 
fying Jennings, Davenport and Deacon, because they could 
not take the oaths. The Quakers themselves appealed to 
the instructions, and Cornbury, upon "looking further," 
felt obliged to admit them under the fifty-third article. 
The incident proved to his mind that iMorris had brought 
a copy of his instructions from England.' Cornbury, in 
his first letter home, informed the lords of trade that it was 
not necessary to put Quakers into the council because so few 
others were qualified, as had been alleged. He understood, 
also, that they would oppose a militia act." The governor 

•Brodhead, New York, vol. ii. pp. 427, 628, 646; New Jersey Archives 
vol. :u. p. 2gg (note); vol. iv, p. 60. 
'Ibid., vol. iii, p. I. Ubid.. vol. iv, pp. 50, 61. 

^bid., vol. ii. p. 502. '^jbid., vol. iii. p. 2. 

Ibtd., vol. iii, pp. 3, 4. 



262 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

therefore asked the wholly unnecessary question as to what 
he must do in future regarding the Friends. 

In spite of his dislike of the Quakers, however, Corn- 
bury at first inclined toward the proprietary party, which 
had a majority in the assembly, and therefore could bestow 
favors upon the governor.^ But the failure of his lord- 
ship to obtain a satisfactory emolument at their hands, 
and the making of the " deal " between himself, Coxe and 
the anti-proprietary party for their mutual advantage, have 
already been stated. The alliance between Cornbury and 
the opponents of the proprietors brought the most important 
consequences for the council. William Dockwra had al- 
ready recommended the appointment of Peter Sonmans to 
the place left vacant by the death of Leonard, representing 
him as " agent " of the English proprietors.- By using the 
term " proprietors in England," Dockwra, of course, im- 
plied large shareholders who were more or less at variance 
with the Scots of Perth Amboy, but actually these " Eng- 
lish proprietors " were a small ring led by Dockwra him- 
self, and controling not more than five or six of the twenty- 
four shares of East Jersey. The claims of Daniel Coxe, 
Jr., were also advanced, though apparently not by Dockwra 
directly.^ Indignant protests against these appointments 
were, however, entered by the West Jersey Society.* But 
Cornbury himself now recommended for the vacancies 
Daniel Coxe and Col. Townley, of Elizabethtown, and, as a 
third vacancy resulted from the death of Walker, he put 
forward Roger Mompesson, whom he had already named 
chief justice. "^ All these persons were, of course, unac- 
ceptable to the proprietors. 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 121. '^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. ,35. 40, 42. 
^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 40, 42. * Ibid., vol. iii, p. 35. 

"Ibid., vol. iii, p. 78. 



THE COUNCIL— PERSONNEL 263 

The adherence of Cornbury to the anti-proprietary fac- 
tion ahiiost at once brought him into violent conflict with 
Lewis Morris, who possessed courage in a high degree, and 
who was always inchned to take direct and even violent 
means to enforce his rights. Morris at once asserted that 
the conduct of Cornbury, in refusing to safeguard the rights 
of the proprietors, was a violation of the conditions upon 
which the province had been surrendered.^ As the pur- 
poses of the governor became clearer, Morris refused to 
obey his orders or to attend meetings of the council, while, 
on the other hand, he took a leading part in organizing the 
opposition to Cornbury. There is no doubt that the able 
Morris was fully informed as to the underhand dealings of 
his lordship, and knew that the proprietors could save 
themselves only by open war. Cornbury therefore sus- 
pended Morris from the council, but a temporary reconcilia- 
tion was effected through Dr. Innis. the Anglican clergy- 
man of Monmouth County." When Cornbury managed to 
capture the second assembly, however, Morris endeavored 
to defeat the passage of the legislation upon which the allies 
had agreed, and Cornbury, representing this as an attempt 
to defeat the Queen's service, suspended Morris again, and 
notified the home authorities.^ 

The loss of Morris was soon followed by that of Samuel 
Jennings, who also recognized the impossibility of resist- 
ing Cornbury within the council, and who did not have the 
same influence and wealth to rely upon in opposing the 
governor. He therefore resigned from the council on the 
plea that he could not afford the expense involved.* The 
two ex-councillors, Morris and Jennings, became at once 
the leaders in the fight against Cornbury's tyranny. Both 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, pi). 73-4. '^ Ibid., vol. iii. ]). 75. 

^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 77. *Tt>id., vol. iii, p. 160. 



264 '^HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

secured election to the third assembly, of which Jennings 
was chosen speaker, and their bravery and determination 
enabled the representatives to make the celebrated stand 
against the outrageous corruption of Cornbury which re- 
sulted at last in his overthrow. When Cornbury forced into 
fierce opposition the tw^o ablest men of the colony, his blun- 
der was fatal. 

Meanwhile the home government had supplied the va- 
cancies in the council by naming Coxe, Townley and Mom- 
pesson, in accordance with the wishes of Cornbury.^ All 
three of these were to be prominent in the politics of the 
province, and, second only to the royal governors and 
Morris, Col. Coxe was to be a leader in affairs during al- 
most the entire period. He was the son of Dr. Daniel 
Coxe, who had purchased the original rights of Edward 
Byllinge, and later had sold the greater part of his inter- 
ests to the West Jersey Society. As his father was one of 
the court physicians of Queen Anne, and widely known. 
Col. Coxe possessed considerable influence with the home 
government.' As representative of the Coxe interests in 
the Jerseys, he stood in general opposition both to the 
Quaker proprietors, who controlled the council of proprie- 
tors, and to Morris, the agent of the West Jersey Society. 
It was therefore natural that he should be an ardent sup- 
porter of Anglicanism, and. one of the leading spirits in 
St. Mary's Church of Burlington, where for a time he re- 
sided. In character he was energetic, scheming and con- 
tentious, like Morris, his rival. Hunter, who later came 
into violent conflict with him, called him " a noisy fool." ' 
but he undoubtedly possessed much ability, though without 
caution or the finer kind of political skill. He was not very 

^ Liber AAA of Covimissions, p. 'J2. 

'New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 262. " /hid., vol. iii, p. 2CQ. 



THE COUNCIL— PERSONNEL 265 

scrupulous in his methods, and his connection with Corn- 
bury is, of course, discreditable. Later, however, he did 
much to retrieve his reputation, serving on the bench of 
the province with credit, and holding the post of president 
of the council of West Jersey proprietors.^ 

Townley and Mompesson were tools. Col. Richard 
Townley, though of Elizabethtown, was an Anglican and a 
Jacobite. Born of good family in England, he had re- 
trieved a broken fortune by a marriage with the widow of 
Governor Carteret. Col. Townley seems to have borne an 
excellent character among his townsmen, and is remem- 
bered chiefly because of his efforts in founding and main- 
taining St. John's Anglican Church in this hostile ground.' 
Apparently, however, he was not a man of marked char- 
acter, and was willing to approve of the ill-concealed cor- 
ruption of Cornbury and his ring. Mompesson was a 
London lawyer, who had recently arrived in America, and 
who had been made chief justice of New York and New 
Jersey. He appears to have been an ably-trained lawyer, 
but, like Townley, was willing to be Cornbury's confeder- 
ate. Mompesson became the son-in-law of Judge Pinhorne, 
with whom he remained closely associated.^ He deserves 
at least the credit for having been a less resolute knave than 
most of those who surrounded Cornbury. 

The efforts of the " English proprietors " to secure the 
appointment of Peter Sonmans continued,'' but the opposi- 
tion caused the lords of trade to take the precaution of 
asking Cornbury's opinion regarding his suitability.'' That 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 116 (notej. Coxe is noted espe- 
cially as the author of one of the earliest plans of colonial union. 

'Hattield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 274-5. 

'Field, J'rovincial Courts of New Jersey, pp. 56-6 r. 

* New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, pp. 10 1, 129. 
'Ibid., vol. iii, p. 125. 



266 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

high authority replied that he thought Sonmans very suit- 
able, since he had always acted " with respect to the govern- 
ment." ^ Upon the retirement of Jennings, Cornbury re- 
commended Sonmans for the place,- and the appointment 
was eventually made.^ Peter Sonmans must have been in 
some respects a superior man, yet all the evidence goes to 
show that his career was one of the worst that the early 
history of New Jersey presents. Ke was a Hollander by 
birth, and had been educated in the University of Ley den, 
but had later removed to England, and had held several con- 
siderable public posts there under William III. His father 
was Arent Sonmans, one of the original twenty-four pro- 
prietors of East Jersey, and from him Peter Sonmans in- 
herited large proprietary interests.* In England he seems 
to have been closely associated with Dockwra, and through 
him received a commission as " agent " of the " English 
proprietors." '' As a member of the council of New Jersey, 
however, he became, with Coxe and Basse, a leader of Corn- 
bury's notorious clique. In certain proceedings in the 
Courts of Middlesex County, he was guilty of injustice 
and misconduct. So deeply involved was he that his con- 
duct became one of the special subjects of complaint against 
the administration,'^ and, upon the retirement of Cornbury, 
he was indicted for perjury and other high crimes.^ At 
a later period he was apprehended in what was apparently 
deliberate fraud and embezzlement of proprietary funds.** 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 154. 'Ibid., vol. iii, p. j6c. 

'Ibid., vol. iii, p. 339. 

* Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Aniboy, 
p. ^6. 

^ Liber AAA of Cotnmissions. p. 38. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 374. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 378: Minutes of the Stt-prt-nw Court (1704-1715),. 
pp. 80-1. 

'^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 124. 



THE COUNCIL— PERSOXXEL 267 

Yet such was the adroitness and skill with which he de- 
fended himself when under prosecution, that he succeeded 
in avoiding serious punishment. The lengthy memorials 
and communications in which he defended himself show 
clearly his education and ability, but are also good evidence 
of his misconduct.^ As to his private character, it is fitting 
after this lapse of time, to say no more than that it was 
not above reproach, though he paraded his zeal as a church- 
man. That it was possible for such a man to play so 
prominent a part for so long a time shows clearly the laxity 
of the provincial government. 

Such was the constitution of the council which supported 
Cornbury. During his rule, however, Davenport, Revell and 
Bowne were unable to play a very active part because of age." 
Upon one point Cornbury met direct defeat. This was re- 
garding the suspension of Morris. No sooner was the sus- 
pension announced than efforts began to be made to secure his 
restoration, especially by the influential West Jersey Society. 
of which he was agent.'' The lords of trade soon directed 
Cornbury to restore Morris, though they thought it fitting 
that he should first make " submission " to the governor.* 
Cornbury expressed his willingness to obey, but said he 
had no idea that Morris would " submit." This outcome 
was virtually a victory for Morris, as he boasted that he 
could take his place in the council when he chose, and the 
opposition to the governor was strengthened and encour- 
aged.^' Morris, however, rightly judged that it would avail 
him little to sit in a hopeless minority in the council. In- 
stead, he preferred to act in the assembly, where, as has been 
indicated, he was, with Jennings, the leading spirit. 

When Cornbury was superseded by Lovelace, even the 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 416. ''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 155. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 85. * Ibid., vol. iii, p. 124, 

" Fbid.. vol. iii, p. 225. 



268 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

lords of trade understood that a change in the council was 
necessary. The West Jersey Society made representations 
against Coxe, Sonmans, Revell, Leeds and Quary/ but the 
home government acted only against Leeds and Revell, be- 
cause of their indefensible conduct in abetting Cornbury 
in keeping the three West Jersey members out of the second 
assembly. The advice of William Penn was asked, and his 
opinion was that Revell and Leeds should be dropped.^ 
Their names were accordingly omitted from Lovelace's 
instructions." Their punishment was. indeed, deserved; 
yet, after all, they appear to have been mere tools, and far 
less dangerous than Coxe and Sonmans. Nor was the 
choice as their successors of Hugh Huddy, of Burlington, 
and William Hall, of Salem, a happy one. These men had, 
however, been recommended with others by the West Jersey 
Society.* 

Hugh Huddy was the person to whom Cornbury had 
granted that monopoly of the highway between Amboy and 
Burlington, which had been one of the grievances in the 
great remonstrance of 1707.^ LIunter described him as a 
weak old man, readily led by the members of Cornbury's 
ring,*"' and his career seems to justify this characterization, 
as he proved always ready to follow the lead of Coxe. Of 
William Hall's character and personality little is known, 
but, like Huddy. he soon became a prominent member of 
the hateful administrative clique, and was accused of abuses 
of power second only to those of Sonmans.'' Hall had 
formerly been a Quaker, but now soon began to show zeal 
for the Anglican church — a fact which may in some degree 

^ Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 300. '-Ibid., vol. iii, p. 303. 

'^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 30Q, 317. ''Ibid., vol. iii. p. 302. 

'■'Ibid., vol. iii, p. 176; Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 67. 
* New Jersey Archivts, vol. iv. p. 61. ''Ibid., vol. iv. p. 7Q. 



1 



THE COUNCIL— PERSONNEL 269 

account for the peculiar bitterness with which he was re- 
g-ardecl in West Jersey.^ The accession of these two mem- 
bers to the " ring " was partly overset by the formal re- 
storation of Lewis Morris to the presidency of the council, 
for in Lovelace's instructions his name led all the rest. 

Before Lovelace arrived Davenport and Andrew Bowne 
were dead. Cornbury notified the lords of this fact and 
recommended successors, but the vacancies were allowed to 
stand." The brief administration of Lovelace brought no 
further changes in the constitution of the council. 

One of the first acts of Lieutenant-governor Ingoldsby 
was to re-suspend the devoted Morris,^ who had greatly en- 
raged his colleagues by acting entirely independent of them 
during the rule of Lovelace.* As Ingoldsby did not dare to 
suspend Morris upon his own responsibility, an address to 
the lieutenant-governor, accusing him of causing the dis- 
orders of the province, and asking for his permanent re- 
moval, was prepared and signed by Pinhorne, Townley, 
Coxe, Sonmans and Huddy.^ It was then entered on the 
council records that Morris was suspended for the reasons 
given in the address. Ingoldsby also wrote to the lords 
relative to the vacancies existing in the council,® but all his 
recommendations were ignored. The lords of trade re- 
commended that Morris be restored, since his suspension 
had been upon insufficient grounds, and that Thomas Gor- 
don and Thomas Gardiner be put into the vacancies.^ This 
recommendation was carried out when Governor Hunter 
was commissioned in 1709. But though the West Jersey 
Society made strong representations against continuing 
Coxe, Sonmans and their clique,* the lords did not have 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv,pp. 125, 157. 'Ibid., vol. iii, p. 340. 

^Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 367-9. *^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 380. 381. 

"Ibid., vol. iii, p. 464. '^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 463. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii. p. 499. *" Ibid., vol. iii, p. 497. 



270 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



penetration enough to see the necessity of retiring them. 
Thus the new governor was called upon to do battle with 
a ring of corruptionists well intrenched in power. ^ There 
was some gain for the proprietary party, however, in the 
retirement of Ingoldsby and the naming of Gordon and 
Gardiner. 

The earlier career of Thomas Gordon has already been 
touched upon.- A Scot by birth, a university man by edu- 
cation, he was one of the leading members of the Amboy 
clique of proprietors of East Jersey. As speaker of the as- 
sembly, after the illness of Jennings, he had taken an active 
part in the conflict with Cornbury, and had suffered real 
persecution at the hands of his lordship and Peter Son- 
mans."'' Gordon was one of the few attorneys in the prov- 
ince, and his experience certainly qualified him for a place 
in the council. But while the career of Gordon was active, 
he gave no proof of signal ability. Under Hunter he be- 
came treasurer of the province, but finally got into an un- 
fortunate tangle over his accounts, which were adjudged by 
the assembly to be many pounds short, and died before it 
was shown that the difficulty was due to a mere error in 
book-keeping.* Like so many of the council, Gordon was 
an active churchman.'"' Thomas Gardiner, on the other 
hand, was a West Jersey Friend, a son of one of the early 
settlers of Burlington, himself a proprietor and a member 
of the council of proprietors. To some degree he was the 
successor of Jennings as the political leader of the Quakers, 
and he had just distinguished himself for his bravery in 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 2. 

■^ For a sumniar}' of Gordon's career see Whitehead, Contributions to 
the Early History of Peiih Amboy. p. 60, et seq. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 75. 

^Minutes of the Supreme Coutt (Amboy, 1714-1731), pp. 131, 134. 
* Whitehead, op. cit., p. 219. 



THE COUNCIL— PERSON i\ EL 27 1 

opposing the expedition to Canada.' Later he became one 
of Hunter's chosen advisers.^ 

There is no evidence to show that Hunter had deter- 
mined upon his attitude toward the party in control of the 
council before he assumed the administration. But his 
experience with his first assembly convinced him that Corn- 
bury's clique were adopting a policy of mere obstruction, 
with a view to making political capital. He also saw that 
the difference between the parties was irreconcilable. There- 
fore, in his very first lengthy communication to the home 
government relating to New Jersey affairs. Hunter in- 
formed them that political tranquillity in the province would 
be impossible while Sonmans. Coxe. Pinhorne and Hall re- 
mained in the council. Mompesson and Huddy he regarded 
as weak men. led astray by the four mentioned. Quary 
was, he believed, an able and honorable officer, who had 
been temporarily mistaken in his policy." The recommen- 
dation that four such prominent men be removed was a bold 
one. Hunter's task of clearing out the old ring was, how- 
ever, somewhat lightened by the fact that Townley died at 
about the time that he arrived in America." and that Sand- 
ford," and a little later Mompesson, voluntarily retired." 

The usual lengthy delay followed Hunter's recommenda- 
tions as to removal. His suggestions were carefully con- 
sidered by his various superiors in England, and meanwhile 
several influences were at work for and against the gov- 
ernor. The \\>st Jersey Society, led by its energetic vice- 
president. Edward Richier, aided his efforts, endeavoring 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 462. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 119; Smith, New Jersey, p. 401. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 61. _ ^Tbid., vol. iv, p. 61. 

"Ibid., vol. iv, p. 60. 

"He attended no meetings after July, 171 1. Pinhorne did not attend 
after the first assembly. 



272 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



at the same time to secure the appointment to the council 
of persons satisfactory to it.^ Dockwra, as usual, acted 
as the mouthpiece for Coxe, and the council ring, submit- 
ting to Secretary Popple a long communication from an un- 
named member of the council, vigorously attacking Hunter.^ 
A new element in the discussion was added by the Rev. Jacob 
Henderson, an Anglican missionary of Pennsylvania, who 
represented Hunter's whole conduct as an attack upon the 
Church of England.^ The delay was so long that Plunter, 
embarrassed as he was, wrote twice to the home authorities 
urging action.* Finally, after a delay of over two years, 
the lords recommended that Coxe, Sonmans, Pinhorne and 
Hall be removed, and that John Anderson, William Morris, 
John Hamilton and John Reading be appointed in their 
places, while Elisha Parker and Thomas Byerly were named 
for the two vacancies. The crown confirmed all the persons 
named except William Morris, who died while the matter 
was pending. ° 

The sweeping change in the council was a great victory 
for Hunter, and at the same time a true proof of his states- 
manship. It brought about complete harmony between gov- 
ernor and council,® and the latter body was once more made 
respectable. Yet it cannot be said that the new members 
were persons of commanding abilities. The two most not- 
able were Col. John Hamilton and John Anderson, whose 
careers have been touched upon in the section upon the 
presidency of the council, to which post both eventually 
succeeded. John Reading was another West Jersey pro- 
prietor, who, though not himself a Quaker,^ was closely 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 115, 141, 152. 
*Ibid., vol. iv, p. 116 et seq. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 155. 

'Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 149, 151. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 169, 171. 

^Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 486. ''Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 483. 



THE ecu NCI L— PERSONNEL 



2/3 



identified with them, and known chiefly as the clerk of the 
council of proprietors.' Thomas Bycrly was collector of 
customs at New York, but held proprietary interests in the 
Jerseys." 

The change thus effected was the crucial one as regards 
the character of the council. From this time on, during 
the union period, with the exception of the short rule of 
Cosby, the council remained entirely under the control of 
the governor and of the propr'etary party. Changes in the 
membership were due to death or resignation, and had no 
great political significance. With one exception, the coun- 
cil did not contain men of unusual parts. Yet its m.ember- 
ship, after Hunter's time, did fairly represent such wealth 
and ab lity as the province possessed. The council plays a 
less prominent part, because it did not cause violent con- 
tentions with the governor and assembly, but it did its duty 
more effectively through its policy of quiet agreement in the 
wise policies of Hunter and Burnet. 

During the administration of Hunter, further vacancies 
were caused by the death of Ouary, Mompesson, Gardiner,' 
Reading, Huddy, and Elisha Parker.* At one time, ow- 
ing to the difficulty in obtaining a quorum. Hunter was 
forced to exercise his power of making temporary appoint- 
ments, naming Dr. John Johnstone and John Parker, of Perth 
Amboy, and Peter Fretwell and John Hugg, two Quakers 
of West Jersey.' These appointments were eventually con- 
firmed. David Lyell, of Amboy, and John Wills, of the 
Western Division, were also given places.'' The home au- 
thorities, in accepting these persons, willingly followed 

^ New Jersey Archives, vo\. iv, p. 62 (note). 

*Ibid., vol. iv, p, 62. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 175. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 326, 2^2,. *" Ibid., vol. iv, p. 363; vol. xiv, p. 75. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 331; vol, xiv, p. 6. 



274 'I'HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY H 

Hunter's wishes, as his success had secured their confid- 
ence. There were, however, the usual delays and misun- 
derstandings due to the slowness of communication and 
the cumbersome character of the British colonial system.^ 
A touch of humanity appears in one instance; when, owing 
to a mistake, the lords of trade removed, as superannuated, 
George Deacon, Hunter wrote back asking that the step 
be rescinded, as Deacon had been faithful, and removal 
would break the old man's heart." It was nevertheless a 
source of weakness to the council that several of its mem- 
bers were likely to be too old for active service. Neither 
Deacon nor Byerly could at this time attend meetings held 
at any distance from their homes. '^ 

Of the members named in the latter part of Hunter's 
time, John Johnstone and David Lyell were the most not- 
able. Johnstone, like Thomas Gordon, had already had a 
long career in New Jersey.* He had originally been a 
chemist in Edinburgh, and hence was usually called Dr. 
Johnstone. Being associated with George Scot, of Pit- 
lochie, in inducing immigration to East Jersey from Scot- 
land, Johnstone had removed to the colony himself in 1685. 
For his work with Scot he was rewarded by several large 
land grants from the proprietors, and took a very active 
share in proprietary affairs. He resided chiefly in New 
York, although interested in the Jerseys, and took some part 
in the affairs of that colony also. Johnstone was a friend 
of Hunter, and seems to have had many fine traits of char- 
acter. He was, however, unscrupulous in his political 
methods, and his ability made him dangerous to those whom 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 374. 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 373. '^ Ibid., vol. iv, n. 363. 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 69. 



THE COUNCIL— PERSONNEL 275 

he opposed.^ David Lyell was also an active member of 
the Amboy group of Scotch proprietors." John Parker 
was the son of Eh'sha Parker, and son-in-law of Dr. John- 
stone. Though resident at Amboy, he was a merchant in 
New York.^ It is certainly very noticeable how completely 
the Amboy element in East Jersey and the Quakers of 
Burlington and their allies dominated the council under 
Hunter. 

Just before the close of his rule two new appointments 
were made ; John Reading, son of the former councilor, and 
Peter Bard, a naturalized Huguenot merchant, resident in 
Burlington. 

In the instructions of Burnet no changes in the council 
were made. It now consisted of Morris, Gordon, Ander- 
son, Hamilton, Byerly, Lyell, Parker, Wills, Hugg, John- 
stone, Reading and Bard.* Burnet had, however, scarcely be- 
gun his administration before vacancies resulted from the 
death of Gordon and Byerly. To these places, upon the 
governor's recommendation, James Alexander, the sur- 
veyor-general of the province, and James Smith, its secre- 
tary, were named.'' 

James Alexander undoubtedly stood next to Morris as the 
most able person in the public life of the province. He was 
of noble birth in Scotland, recognized as heir to the title of 
Earl of Sterling, but he had joined the cause of the Pre- 
tender in 1 71 5, and, after his defeat, thought it best to 
withdraw to the colonies. He had been well educated, es- 
pecially in mathematics, and had served in the Stuart army 
as an engineer officer. In New York, Alexander, in spite 
of their opposition in political principles, formed a friend- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 56. 

'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 84. ^ Ibid., p. 129. 

* Nezu Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 3. 'Ibid., vol. v, pp. 52, 71. 



276 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ship with his fellow Scot, Governor Hunter, through whose 
assistance he rose to prominence. When he came to 
America, he brought with him authority from several of 
the proprietors of East Jersey to look after their interests/ 
and he almost at once began to take an active part in pro- 
prietary affairs. Later he was named as surveyor-general 
of both the Jerseys," as well as of New York. Meanwhile 
Alexander took up the study of law, and was soon recog- 
nized as the ablest lawyer in New York. In the course of 
his long public career he held numerous high offices in both 
New Jersey and New York, and seems to have acquired dis- 
tinction in all. The private character of Alexander was of 
the highest type, and he was a scholar and scientist of abil- 
ity, one of the founders of the American Philosophical So- 
ciety.^ 

Yet, great as were the services of James Alexander, he is 
known to the student of New Jersey history chiefly because 
he was the author of the Elizabethtown B'll in Chancery, 
and the father of Lord Sterling, the revolutionary general. 
These are no mean titles to remembrance, but they should 
scarcely outweigh the meritorious service of a lifetime. 

The beginning of Burnet's administration was marked 
also by another suspension. Burnet, undoubtedly with 
much reason, bel'eved that George Willocks was responsible 
for the opposition offered to him by his first assembly. As 
Willocks was a professed Jacobite, Burnet declared him to 
be an enemy of the government. But John Anderson said 
in the council that he did not take Willocks to be an enemy 
of the government. Thereupon Burnet suspended Ander- 
son from the council, and informed the lords of trade.* 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 241. 

'^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 288; vol. xiv, p. 3. 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 399 (note). ^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 221. 



THE COUNCIL— PERSONNEL 277 

The governor appears to have been rather hasty in the mat- 
ter, no doubt being chagrined at the oppos'tion and annoy- 
ance offered him. The lords seem to have taken no action 
and after a time Burnet himself removed the suspension and 
restored Anderson to his place. ^ 

The only other change in the council under Burnet seems 
to have been the appointment of Cornelius Van Horn, in 
1727, to the place made vacant by the death of David Lyell.' 
There was no further alteration during the br'ef rule of 
Montgomerie, though a vacancy was caused by the death of 
Hugg-^* 

Upon the arrival of Cosby, however, there w-ere new de- 
velopments, due chiefly to the bitter quarrel originating in 
i\'ew York affairs between the governor and Morris and 
Alexander. Cosby's attack upon the positions and char- 
acters of the two gentlemen was of so crude and violent a 
nature as to reveal clearly the motives lying beh'nd it. He 
recommended to the home government that both of these 
distinguished men be removed from the council,* and the 
lords of trade actually submitted to the Crown the names of 
successors.^ Neither Morris nor Alexander attended any 
meetings under Cosby, the former, indeed, making a journey 
to England to appeal personally against the unjust conduct 
of the governor. Morris's mission, as we know, resulted 
in his complete vindication and restoration to the post of 
chief justice of New York, a place which he was soon to 
exchange for the governorship of the Jerseys. 

Since the death of Quary no customs officer had held a 
place in the council of New Jersey. Soon after the appoint- 

^ New Jersey Arc/iwes,vol. xiv, p. 3:8. ' /did., vol. xiv, p. 335. 
^Ibid., vol. V, pp. 316, 346. Dr. Johnstone died soon after Mont- 
gomerie. 
*^ Ibid., vol. V, pp. 323, 325, 329, 366 etc. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 409. 



278 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ment of Cosby, however, John Peagrim, the surveyor-gen- 
eral of customs of the district, was given a place, though he 
manifested much less activity and interest in the affairs of 
the Jerseys than Quary had done/ Meanwhile a number 
of vacancies in the council occurred through the deaths of 
Hugg, Bard, Johnstone, Parker and James Smith. To the 
first vacancy, William Provost, who had been recommended 
by Morris during his presidency, was named." For the 
other places Cosby recommended Thomas Farmar, who had 
so long been second judge; John Schuyler, famous as 
the owner of the copper mine in Bergen County, of 
which such frequent mention is made. Dr. John Rodman 
and Richard Smith. ^ The lords complained that these 
gentlemen made no efforts to have their warrants passed, 
and stated that if their neglect continued it would be neces- 
sary to appoint other persons in their stead.* This step was 
not taken, however, and during Cosby 's rule the council 
remained short-handed. Cosby finally put Farmar into the 
council to secure a quorum,'' but the other persons recom- 
mended did not take their seats until the next administration. 
With the exception of Morris and Alexander, the mem- 
bers of the council seem to have been on good terms with 
Cosby. Hamilton and Anderson appear to have been in 
special favor, and we may guess that the council, as a whole, 
was not sorry to be relieved of the predominating influence 
of Morris and Alexander.^ The endeavor of Morris, after 
the death of Cosby, to assert his right to the presidency of 
the council, and the resulting conflict with Hamilton and the 
majority of the council, have been treated in the section on 
the presidency of the council. During the period following 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 347. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 346. 

* Ibid., vol. V, pp. 374, 402. *■ Ibid., vol. v, p. 454- 

* Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 516. '''Ibid., vol. v, p. 463. 



THE COUNCIL—PERSONNEL 279 

the death of Cosby, no further changes in the personnel of 
the council took place until the issue of the instructions to 
Governor Lewis Morris. 

During the latter part of the union period, when feeling 
in favor of a separate executive was growing in the Jerseys, 
complaint was frequently heard that many members of the 
council were residents of other colonies. As has been stated 
in another section, a formal address was made on this point 
by the assembly to Governor Cosby. ^ Considering the 
union period as a whole, we must certainly be struck by the 
fact that a number of the most prominent councilors did not 
reside continuously in the Jerseys. Among these. Lewis 
Morris, Alexander, Johnstone, Mompesson and Byerly lived 
in New York, while Quary, James Smith and Coxe were 
residents of Philadelphia. Most of these men, however, 
lived at various times in the Jerseys, and Morris always 
maintained an estate at Shrewsbury. All except Mom- 
pesson, Quary and Smith held important proprietary inter- 
ests, and Morris, Alexander, Coxe and Johnstone were per- 
haps the leading political forces in the public affairs of the 
Jerseys. But, at the same time, nearly all of the non-resi- 
dent councilors were taking an active part in the political 
life of New York and other colonies, and hence did not give 
their whole attention to Jersey affairs. 

The council was therefore fairly representative of the 
leading political interests in the province, though hardly of 
its native talent. It now remains to be shown what share 
the council actually took as a body in the work of adminis- 
tration and government. 

^ Assembly Journal, May 18, 1733. 



CHAPTER XVI 
The Council — Its Legal Position 

When New Jersey became a royal province, what we 
may call the typical form of provinc'al govermnent had al- 
ready become well established in the custom of the home 
government, as well as in the thought of the American 
colonists themselves. The new province was therefore 
given, with some few relatively unimportant concessions to 
local condit'ons, the usual organs of government. Of these 
the governor's council was one of the most important. The 
legislative, judicial, administrative and advisory powers 
were essentially the same as those possessed by the councils 
of all the other royal colonies. 

Cornbury's commission directed that he should rule ac- 
cording to his commission and instructions, and according 
to such reasonable laws as should be agreed upon by him, 
with the consent and advice of the council and the assembly.^ 
The council was thus at the beginning made the upper 
house of the leg'slature of the province. Cornbury was to 
administer the oaths of allegiance to the council immediately 
after the publication of his commission,- and though he did 
not have the power to make permanent appointments to the 
council, he did have full authority to suspend all members. 
But in case of any vacancy by death, suspension, or other- 
wise, he was to give immediate notice to the home govern- 
ment, that new appointments might be made. The gov- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol ii, p. 490. ''Ibid., vol. ii, p. 491. 

280 



THE COUNCIL— ITS LEGAL POSITION 28 1 

ernor was, however, in such cases allowed to fill up the mem- 
bership of the council to the number of seven, and such 
appointees were to act until they were either confirmed or 
others named in their stead. The small number of three 
was fixed as a quorum of the council for business.^ 

Cornbury was to call general assemblies with the advice 
and consent of the council. And by the advice and consent 
of the same body he was to establish all the courts of judica- 
ture and to appoint their powers and fees." With the same 
sanction he might erect forts, and furnish them with arms 
and suppl es necessary for the defense of the province.* 
Public money was to be paid out only upon warrants, signed 
by the governor, with the advice and consent of the coun- 
cil. Cornbury could appoint fairs, marts and markets ; also 
ports, harbors, etc., by and with the consent of the council.* 
In case of the death or absence of both governor and 
lieutenant-governor, the council was to take upon itself the 
administration of the province, under the presidency of the 
councilor who was named first, and who was residing in the 
province.^ 

This was all that was actually said in the commission as 
to the work of the council, though it was, of course, under- 
stood that its general position was to be that of the council 
in the other royal provinces. A study of the governor's 
instructions, however, gives a more detailed knowledge of 
its character and functions. The number of the council 
was fixed at twelve, who were named in the instructions.*' 
Of these, six were from West Jersey, and six from the 
eastern division; and though it was not specifically stated, 
the custom was afterward followed of having the mem- 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. ii. p. 492. '^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 495. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 499. * Ibid., vol. ii, p. 499. 

'Ibid., vol. ii, p. 497. *Ibid., vol. ii, p. 507. 



282 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

bership divided in this way/ This territorial division of 
the council is doubtless the leading- peculiarity of the coun- 
cil of the Jerseys, as compared with those of other royal 
provinces. The number was, however, increased by the ad- 
dition of Robert Quary, the surveyor-general of customs for 
all the colonies, and later by that of the lieutenant-governor.^ 
Cornbury was ordered to impart to the council so many 
of the instructions wherein their advice and consent was re- 
quisite, as well as such others as he found of advantage. 
The council was to haA^e freedom of debate and vote upon 
all m.atters taken up by it ; and although three members con- 
stituted a quorum, the governor was not to act with less 
than five unless in case of necessity.^ That the Crown 
might know the names of persons properly qualified for the 
council, Cornbury was to send the names of six such per- 
sons of each division to the commissioners of trade, and as 
this list became diminished he was to send more names. 
In case he himself put persons temporarily into the council, 
he was to send their names and qualifications immediately. 
All councilors were to be of good life and well affected to 
the government. Cornbury was, however, forbidden to in- 
crease or diminish the number of his council. He was not 
to suspend any without good cause, and in case of suspen- 
sion he was to enter the reasons, with the charges and 
proofs, together with the answers of the accused, upon the 
council books, unless there were extraordinary reasons for 
not doing so. All these things, together with the reasons 
for not entering if this were not done, were to be trans- 
mitted at once to the Crown and to the commissioners of 
trade.* Cornbury was to tell the council that if they were 
absent for two months from the province without leave of 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 316. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 146. 

*Ibid., vol. ii, p. 50R. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 509. 



THE COUNCIL— ITS LEGAL POSITION 283 

the governor, or for two years without leave of the queen, 
their places were to become void.^ 

Many of the most important duties of the governor were 
to be executed " by and with the consent of the council." 
Such were the signing of warrants for the payment of pub- 
lic moneys ^ and the granting of commissions to provincial 
officers.^ The sessions of the assembly were to be held 
alternately at Burlington and Amboy, unless the governor, 
by the advice of his council, should appoint otherwise be- 
cause of special necessity. Salaries and fees were to be 
regulated by the governor with the council.' It was es- 
pecially stated that no martial law was to be proclaimed 
without the consent of the council." War was never to be 
declared without the special command of the Crown, except 
against the Indians in special emergency, and then with the 
council's approval.' With the council, Cornbury was to 
provide for the raising of stocks and the building of work- 
houses for the employment of the poor.'' 

Of great importance were the judicial duties of the coun- 
cil. Appeals could be made from the regular courts of the 
province to the governor and council in cases of error. Ap- 
peal could only be taken, however, in cases exceeding one 
hundred pounds, and security must be given by the appellant 
to satisfy judgment in case the decision were affirmed. 
It was also provided that members of the council who were 
judges in the courts whence the appeals were taken were 
not to sit. though they might be present " to state their 
reasons, etc." In cases exceeding two hundred pounds 
there could be appeal from the governor and council to the 
Crown and privy council in England.^ 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 510. '^Ibid., vol. ii, p. 515. 

* Ibid., vol. ii, p. 510. Ibid., vol. ii, p. 521. 
*Ibid., vol. ii, p. 524. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 53s. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 532. ''Ibid., vol. ii, p. 531. 



284 ^-^-E PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

The council had also certain reserve powers. In case 
any matter arose not provided for by the instructions, the 
governor, w.'th the council, was to take such action as they 
might deem necessary. But tlieir decision was to be tenta- 
tive merely, and prompt information of the matter was to 
be sent to the Crown. In case of the governor's death, 
the council was to assume the administration, but was to 
forbear all acts not immediately necessary until a new gov- 
ernor was sent.^ 

A journal of all the council's acts was to be kept, and 
from time to time copies were to be sent to the home au- 
thorities." 

Such was the general legal position of the governor's 
council as marked out in the first commission and set of in- 
structions. As its position was based upon the long experi- 
ence gained in other royal provinces, it is not surprising that 
its general legal powers remained substantially unchanged 
during the entire union period. There did occur, however, 
a few changes in its sphere of action which may be noted. 

We have already referred to the changes in the office of 
president of the council. But the many difficulties of Corn- 
bury's administration led the home government to take some 
further steps relative to the council, as well as to the other 
departments of the government. In New Jersey, as in other 
colonies, the governor complained that it was difficult to 
obtain a quorum of the council, owing to the unwillngness 
of the members to undergo the trouble and expense of 
travel, as well as to other reasons. Accordingly, we find 
in 1707 the draft of a circular letter prepared by the lords 
of trade to the several governors in America, ordering 
them to suspend such councilors as willfully absented them- 
selves, after due notice of meetings, if they persisted after 
admonition. Members were to be notified of this order and 
^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 534. "^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 516. 



THE COUNCIL— ITS LEGAL POSITION 285 

it was to be entered on the council books/ There is no evi- 
dence that this letter was ever sent to Cornbury. The new 
rule was, however, made a part of the instructions of Love- 
lace.' Another point raised in Cornbury 's time was as to 
the action of the council regarding appointments to office. 
Cornbury's appointments gave r'se to great complaint, and 
the West Jersey Society, in a memorial to the lords of trade, 
declared that he had named persons to office without and 
even against th.e advice of the council.^ The lords, how- 
ever, while not justifying Cornbury's general conduct, ruled 
that the governor was not bound to have the advice of his 
council in naming sheriffs, if he saw cause to act inde- 
pendently. ■* Though their ruling lessened the power of the 
council, it was undoubtedly justified by the text of the 
instructions. 

The instructions of Lovelace made no important alter- 
ations in the work of the council. An add tional article, 
however, emphasized the necessity of appointing men of 
h'gh character to it, as well as to other important offices.' 
Hunter's instructions repeated Lovelace's with only verb:il 
changes. The added articles did not refer to the structure 
and powers of the colonial government." Likewise, in the 
orders given Burnet, Montgomerie and Cosby, the legal 
position of the governor's council was allowed to remain 
unchanged. This comparative permanence of the legal 
place of the council is very similar to that of the governor- 
ship, and, indeed, of all the governmental inst'tutions of 
the colony. Like them, however, though perhaps in a some- 
what less degree, the actual working position of the council 
did change. To understand how this occurred we must 
look beyond mere constitutional documents and see the 
council in action. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 241-2. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 317. 

*Ibid., vol. iii, p. 93. *Ibid., vol. iii, p. 118. 

''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 317, *Ibid., vol. iii, p. 2. 



CHAPTER XVII 
The Council in Administration 

Although we can safely form certain conclusions as to 
the part played by the council in the work of administration, 
there are two obstacles to a detailed understanding of its 
exact place. One of these is the fact that the council re- 
cords for nearly all of the administration of Cornbury have 
disappeared/ a thing in itself very suspicious when we re- 
call the general reputation of his lordship and his advisers. 
A second greater obstacle is the meagre character of the 
minutes for the rest of the union period. These state clearly 
enough the action which the council took, but give no ac- 
count of the debates and discussions, if such there were, 
which led to the decisions. The student can therefore upon 
many matters merely draw inferences from circumstances 
which are not conclusive. In this respect, however, the 
minutes of the governor and council of New Jersey resemble 
most records of the colonial period. 

With the exception of short periods under Lovelace and 
Hunter, the governor and council, as has been shown, were 
always in close political accord. Whether the governor 
controlled the council or the council the governor, must, 
of course, have depended to some extent upon the strength 
of character and intellect of the two parties. The student 
can hardly help believing that the corrupt and ignorant 
Cornbury was to a great degree controlled by the ring of 

'For a full discussion of their disappearance see preface of vol. xiii. 
New Jersey Archives, p. ^ et seq. 
286 ' 



THE COUNCIL IN ADMINISTRATION 287 

politicians which surrounded him, and which contained men 
of the ability of Coxe, Sonmans, Pinhorne and Basse. ^ 
But this relation was exceptional. As the members of the 
council owed their appointments to the governor and must 
look to him for further favors, their attitude toward him 
was usually one of extreme deference. Through congratula- 
tory addresses and otherwise the council sought to win 
the approval of new governors.' Lovelace's council, though 
out of sympathy with him, dared offer no open opposition 
to his course.^ Hunter did, indeed, find it impossible to 
control the ring intrenched in the council under Ingoldsby. 
but by removing the ringleaders he dominated it com- 
pletely. So, too, did Burnet and even Cosby. Upon many 
matters the council was scarcely more than a means of 
giving formal sanction to the governor's acts, and thus 
enabling him to escape the entire load of responsibility to 
the home government. Undoubtedly the council gave the 
governors advice as to methods and means of action, but, 
as an independent force in directing the policy of the ad- 
ministration, it played an important part only during the 
intervals between the departure of one governor and the 
arrival of another, when the president of the council was 
very careful to rely upon its direction and support. 

Yet, even if its action was hardly more than formal, the 
council was a necessary part of the administrative machin- 
ery of the province. The governor was forbidden by his 
instructions to sign warrants for the payment of public 
money without its approval.* Moreover, it was certainly 
expected by the home government that he would take no 

' Cornbury's alliance with the anti-proprietary party was quite clearly 
the work of Coxe and Quary. New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, pp. 16, 37. 
''Ibid,, vol. xiii, pp. 333, 436; vol. iii, p. 380. 
* Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 27^, 390. ^ Ibid., vol. ii. p. 515. 



288 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

very important step without consulting his council. These 
limitations upon his power compelled the governor to sum- 
mon his council at least once a year, for otherwise the pay- 
ment of salaries would be blocked. 

No exact general statement can be made as to how often 
the council regularly met. During the sessions of the as- 
sembly it, of course, held long meetings corresponding to 
those of the lower house. These sessions at Burlington and 
Amboy were naturally devoted chiefly to legislation. As 
the council, however, always acted much more summarily 
than the assembly, it was able to devote some time to its 
administrative and judicial duties. In addition to these 
long sessons, special meetings of the council were con- 
voked by the governor as occasion required. These, how- 
ever, were not frequent, usually occurring not more than two 
or three times a year. Cornbury was accused of not visit- 
ing New Jersey at all for nine months.^ Such special meet- 
ings were generally held at points convenient for the gov- 
ernor from New York, such as Amboy, Bergen, and even 
Horsimus (now Jersey City)." 

The administration of a new governor regularly began by 
a meeting of the council, at which the governor's commis- 
sion was read and then published. The members of the 
council, except the Friends, next took the oaths required. 
The Quakers for their part signed the corresponding de- 
clarations.^ The commissions of patent ofiicers, of cus- 
toms officers, and of proprietary agents, were regularly read 
in the council, and the oaths were sometimes administered 
to them here as well. Numerous proclamations were from 
time to time issued. The accessions of the kings were 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 2^13. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 307, 553, 556; vol. xiv, pp. i, 309, etc. 

* Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 301, 307; vol. xiv, pp. 143, 392, 474. 



THE COUNCIL IN ADMINISTRATION 289 

thus announced/ Other proclamations were in aid of the 
agents of the proprietors, informing all that they were 
legally commissioned, and ordering that assistance should 
be given them.- Upon a governor's accession, a proclam- 
ation usually continued the powers of the existing executive 
and administrative officers until successors were legally 
appointed. 

The further administrative work of the council was, of 
course, very miscellaneous, but the greater part of it can be 
arranged under a few heads. 

The council always witnessed the signing of warrants for 
the payment of moneys. This hardly appears to have been 
more than a form, though special meetings were in a few 
cases called because of its necessity.'' If the original in- 
tentions of the home government had been carried out, the 
council would undoubtedly have exercised power in super- 
vising the work of the receiver-general and auditing his ac- 
counts, under the direction of the governor; but from the 
beginning the assembly insisted upon its right to control, 
not only the raising, but also the expenditure of public funds, 
and after the accession of Hunter its claims were estab- 
lished.* The council, however, was always requested by 
the assembly to name a committee to meet with that of the 
house in auditing the accounts of the " treasurer," and this 
was regularly done. The council, therefore, had a voice in 
deciding what action should be taken regarding the financial 
officers and their work. Yet the later governors were in- 
clined to follow whatever wishes the lower house ex- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 556; vol. xiv, p. 335. 
^Ibid., vol. V, p. 124; Liber AAA of Commissions, pp. 31, 60. 
^New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 142, 554. 
Assembly Journal, Jan. 25, Feb. 2, 1710-11. 



290 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



pressed, and the council nearly always dutifully agreed with 
his excellency/ 

The power possessed by the governor and council to es- 
tablish courts, to fix their times of session, and to institute 
suitable fees, was undoubtedly great. But the council dis- 
played little independence in this matter. The first great 
ordinance for the establishment of courts is recognized to 
have been mainly the work of Mompesson, Cornbury's chief 
justice, doubtless elaborated with the assistance of Judge 
Pinhorne. Cornbury and council merely approved of it, 
and issued it in their name. The later ordinances were 
based upon that of Mompesson.' The}- were all, however, 
read and considered in the council before they were issued 
by the governor, and alterations in detail were made in def- 
erence to the wishes of the province and the experience of 
the judges, many of whom were members of the council.^ 
The ordinances for fees seem also to have received careful 
attention.* Toward the end of the period, however, they 
were in two cases prepared in deference to the wishes of 
the assembly,^ which was desirous of passing laws regulat- 
ing fees,® and which actually did secure the enactment of 
statutes to make the ordinances " more effectual.'' '^ 

One of the chief duties of the council was the exer- 

^ Under Burnet, however, the governor and council checked the effort 
of the assembly to proceed against the estate of Treasurer Gordon by 
legislation, and insisted upon judicial proceedure which finally justified 
Gordon; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 303. 

' Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, p. 42 and appendix. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 435, 540; vol. xiv, pp. 244, 293, 
307, 388, 504. 

*■ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 538; vol. xiv, pp. 45, 113. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 535; vol. xiv, p. 43. 

''Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 320, 393, 423, 487. 

"^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 552; vol. xiv, p. 502. These acts were, however, 
disallowed by the Crown; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 240, 515; 
Allinson, Statutes. 



THE COUNCIL IN ADMINISTRATION 29 1 

cising, under the governor, of a general oversight of the 
execution of the laws and the carrying-on of the admin- 
istration by the subordinate officers. Complaints and peti- 
tions regarding their conduct were frequently presented to 
the governor and council, and these usually gave rise to in- 
vestigations. Though the governor did not always consult 
his council regarding the removal of colonial officials or the 
appointment of new ones, he usually did so. The most im- 
portant instance of removal during the union period was 
the case of Alexander Griffith, in 17 14. Griffith was the 
attorney-general, a member of Cornbury's clique, who had 
deliberately neglected to prosecute Peter Sonmans and 
Daniel Leeds, though directly ordered to do so. After a 
lengthy investigation, which was virtually a trial in which 
Griffith himself had opportunity to be heard, the council 
found that he had been guilty of misconduct, and advised his 
suspension from office, a step which Hunter promptly took.^ 
Several other cases concerned proprietary officers. In 
February, 171 3- 14, Mr. Byerly, a member of the council, 
entered complaint against Daniel Leeds, the surveyor-gen- 
eral of West Jersey, and other proprietary officers." Upon 
examination before the council, it appeared that Leeds had 
falsified the records of surveys.'"* As a result, the council 
disqualified him from acting further as a surveyor in the 
western division,* and ordered his prosecution, but he was 
by Griffith allowed to escape. Upon the removal of the 
latter, the council again ordered the prosecution of Leeds. '^ 
Later, in April, 1726, under Burnet, complaint was made 
against Peter Sonmans for endeavoring to act as collector 
of quit-rents in virtue of his invalid commission from 
Dockwra.* After full examination by the council, it was 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 557-562. ''Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 516. 
^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 525. ''Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 551. 

"Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 563. ^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 309. 



292 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



decided to prosecute him upon information, and he was 
bound over to stand trial/ A proclamation was also issued 
against him.^ 

Sheriffs, constables, and tax collectors were also brought 
to task and removed or punished. Thus, under Bur- 
net, the sheriff of Monmouth was removed by order of 
the council, for negligence in failing to arrest a sedi- 
tious person,^ and under the first presidency of Morris a 
sheriff of Gloucester was dismissed and the tax collectors 
threatened with prosecution if they continued to fail in doing 
their duty.* 

The governor also preferred to act with the council 
in ordering prosecutions by the attorney-general against 
provincial officers or ex-officers. Thus in January, 
1714-15, under Hunter, it was ordered that Daniel Coxa 
should be prosecuted for " several contempts and misde- 
meanors." ^ Under Burnet the prosecution of the estate 
of Gordon was instituted. ^ Yet, after all, when we con- 
sider the great laxity in enforcing the laws, and especially 
in collecting the taxes, the conclusion is unavoidable that 
the oversight of the council was not very rigid, except in 
cases of political importance. The general inefficiency of 
its control is to be explained partly by the infrequency 
of its meetings and partly by the difficulty of secur- 
ing convictions in the provincial courts.'' The assembly, 
by its addresses and other representations to the governor, 
was far more successful in getting rid of officers to whom it 
objected than was the council. The dismissals of Faucon- 
nier. Gordon and Jamison are cases in point.® 

'Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 316-317- ^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 326. 

*Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 202. 'Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 118, 128. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 563- *Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 309- 
' In the several cases mentioned none of the persons prosecuted were 

convicted. 

* Assembly Journal, March 23, 24, 1708; March 27, 1718-19; Nov. 23, 

1723- 



THE COUNCIL IN ADMINISTRATION 293 

In close connection with this general supervisory func- 
tion, the governor and council exercised a sort of general 
police power over the province. Acting usually on complaint, 
the council had brought before it persons accused of sedi- 
tious words or language, or of attempting to bring the 
government into contempt. There are several notable ex- 
amples of the use of this power. Two of these are con- 
nected with the political contest between Hunter and Col. 
Coxe. Coxe, in his efforts, had been warmly supported by 
the Rev. George Talbot, the able rector of St. Mary's Church 
at Burlington. In 1715, just after the overthrow of Coxe 
and his party, the council declared that, since Talbot was 
suspected of sedition, the sheriff of Burlington should ad- 
minister the oaths of allegiance to him, and, if he refused 
to take them, he should be suspended from the ministry and 
imprisoned until he entered into a recognizance to keep the 
peace. ^ These measures were effective in silencing Talbot. 
It proved necessary to deal with other members of Coxa's 
party also. After the expulsion of Clews, Hewlings, Bull, 
and the other colleagues of Coxe, from the assembly, they 
proceeded to hold meetings and "continue their conspiracy." 
It was therefore ordered that they be arrested.^ Bull and 
Hall were eventually brought before the council and bound 
over for trial.' 

Another case resulted from the opposition offered by the 
Jacobite proprietor, George Willocks, to Governor Burnet. 
In March, 1721, Willocks was brought before the council 
charged with disaffection to the king and his government 
in the colony. After examination, he was remanded to 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 16-19. 
"^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 30. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 42-43. It does not appear that they were con- 
victed. Hall died soon after. 



294 'rHE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

custody until he gave security for good behavior.^ Several 
other persons of less note were arrested by the council for 
somewhat similar offenses." 

The council was also supposed to advise the governor 
upon important matters, and all the governors frequently 
called for the opinions of the members. But the subjects 
upon which this advice was asked differed widely. On one 
or two occasions the chief executive consulted his council 
with the bona fide intention of learning the opinions of the 
leading men of the province. So Burnet consulted his coun- 
cilors as to the best means of providing for the military de- 
fense of the Jerseys.^ In this case a committee of the coun- 
cil considered at length and presented a written report, the 
purport of which was certainly not what the governor de- 
sired.* Usually, however, the asking of the advice of the 
council was a mere form intended to justify the governor 
in some step he was about to take, and the council dutifully 
replied as his excellency desired. So Hunter consulted his 
council about the advisability of dissolving an assembly in 
which Coxe had a majority,^ and soon after about callings an 
assembly at Amboy, instead of at Burlington, as a means of 
circumventing Coxe.** So, too, Montgomerie consulted his 
council as to the conduct of the assembly in addressing the 
Crown for a separate government, and was informed that 
it showed disloyalty to do so before finding out the wishes 
of the Crown in the matter. '^ So far as appears from the 
journal, the governors never formally asked advice on mat- 
ters of general policy. 

Such were the main administrative functions of the coun- 

' A/gw Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 151. 

'^ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. ZZ^ 200. "Ibid., vol. xiv, pp- 164, 166. 

*Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 174. ''Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 4. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 6. ~' Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 398. 



THE COUNCIL IN ADMINISTRATION 295 

cil. Other miscellaneous duties it had, like the granting of 
patents for several purposes. Ferries, for example, were 
thus established. Other patents were for churches, one of 
the most interesting of which was for the establishing of 
St. Mary's at Burlington, granted in 1710.^ 

It must be very evident from what has been stated that, in 
carrying on its work, the governor and council acted to- 
gether as a unit. It is highly probable, indeed, that much 
of what went on in the council had been arranged before- 
hand by private conferences and discussions between the 
governor and his friends both in and out of the council. 
This was especially the case under Hunter, who was ac- 
cused, during the early part of his rule, of having a sort of 
" cabinet " apart from the council, consisting of Morris, 
George Clarke, Farmar, Gordon, Gardiner, and the Jacob- 
ite, Willocks.- 

Before leaving the administrative work of the coun- 
cil, there is another aspect of the matter which must be 
considered. In New Jersey, as in nearly all the colonies, 
the members of the council held at the same time numerous 
other more or less lucrative and important posts under the 
government. To give only a few cases, Lewis Morris was 
not only president of the council, but agent of the West 
Jersey Society, president of the council of proprietors of 
East Jersey, and the holder of numerous posts in New 
York, including for a time that of chief justice. James 
Alexander, while serving in the council, was surveyor-gen- 
eral of both the Jerseys and their attorney-general, besides 
holding offices in New York. Col. Hamilton was deputy 
postmaster for North America, and for a time second judge 
and president of the council of proprietors of East Jersey. 
Mompesson was chief justice of both New York and New 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 396. ''^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 119. 



296 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Jersey. Pinhorne was second judge of the Jerseys. Coxe 
was a colonel ; Leeds, surveyor-general of West Jersey ; 
Sonmans, collector of quit-rents in East Jersey ; Byerly was 
collector of customs at New York; Thomas Gardiner was 
surveyor-general of West Jersey; John Reading, clerk of 
the council of proprietors of West Jersey ; and James Smith, 
secretary of the province and proprietary register. Nearly 
all the members of the council under Cornbury and Ingolds- 
by were judges in their respective counties, and many of 
them were military officers.^ A large number of councilors 
were proprietors, though all the factions in the proprietor- 
ship were represented at various times. 

Thus, in supervising the administration the councilors 
were to some extent supervising themselves. The concen- 
tration of offices in a few hands appears in its worst form 
under Cornbury. Under worthier executives its harmful 
results are not so apparent. In any case it was undemo- 
cratic and undesirable. The aspect -of the council as a ring 
of officeholders is, of course, a purely non-legal one. But 
the actual importance of the provincial council cannot be 
understood without taking it into account. 

*They were put into the commission of the peace for all the counties 
and Sandford, Bowne, Coxe, Leeds and Revell were provincial judges; 
liber AAA of Commissions. 



CHAPTER XVIII 
The Council in Legislation 

As the upper house of the colonial legislature, the position 
and work of the council of the Jerseys corresponded closely 
with those of the councils of the other royal provinces. Its 
consent was absolutely required for the enactment of pro- 
vincial statutes, and so far as the requirements of the gov- 
ernor's commission and instructions went, it had absolute 
equality with the assembly in the work of legislation.* 
Moreover, as " the upper house " it enjoyed certain honor- 
ary distinctions during the sessions of the legislature. Its 
presiding officer was his excellency in person, and its secre- 
tary was regularly the secretary of the province, a patent 
officer of the Crown.- At the opening of the session the 
members of the assembly attended the council chamber to 
hear the governor's speech, and if the lower house at any 
other time wished to present an address or remonstrance, it 
attended in like manner. The governor also on occasion 
summoned the representatives of the people before himself 
and council to address them further. It was also the cus- 
tom for the assembly to present b'lls for the support of the 
government by waiting upon him in person." 

Since the council was a small body, its methods of pro- 
cedure in legislation were rather simple, despite its affecta- 
tion of dignity. Bills were sometimes introduced by in- 

' AVzt/ Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 493, 511. 

'Basse to 1715, then James Smith. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii and xiv, passim. 

297 



298 '^HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

dividual members on permission given, but frequently the 
council simply voted that a bill of a certain nature be pre- 
pared, and named a person or a committee to draw it up. 
Bills were regularly given three readings, and then sent 
down to the lower house. On important questions, notably 
on many of the bills sent up from the assembly, committees 
to investigate and report were employed, but these were 
never permanent or standing committees. The council 
often disposed of matters rather summarily, owing partly to 
its small size and partly to the unanimity which usually 
existed among its members. Evidences of controversy and 
party divisions among the members are rare.^ As in its ad- 
ministrative so in its legislative work, the council was 
nearly always thoroughly under the control of the governor. 
It regularly defeated or smothered bills of which his ex- 
cellency did not approve, and so enabled him to escape di- 
rectly refusing to consent to measures which had the ap- 
proval of the entire legislature — a " negative voice " which 
he was admitted to possess, but of which he was desirous 
to avoid making use. Only during the earlier years of 
Hunter was the council disposed to offer opposition to the 
chief executive.' In the dealings between council and as- 
sembly messages were sent back and forth by the secretary 
or clerk or by members, and where there were real differ- 
ences of opinion conferences were held which sometimes 
lasted several days." 

But in spite of the fact that it was the '' upper house," 

^ They appear under Cornbury and Hunter. But members out of sym- 
pathy with the policy of the council usually did not attend the meetings 
as in the cases of Morris under Cornbury and Cosby, Pinhorne and 
Mompesson under Hunter, and of Alexander under Cosby. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 51. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii and xiv, passim. Conferences were 
always held. In 1703, however, Cornbury denied that the assembly had 
the right to claim these conferences as a privilege. 



THE COUNCIL IN LEGISLATION 299 

the council in practice had by no means the same influence 
and authority in the actual work of legislation as the as- 
sembly. Its early efforts to assume superiority on certain 
points were soon defeated. During the bitter struggles of 
the administrations of Cornbury, Lovelace and Ingoldsby, 
the council took an active part. But these conflicts con- 
cerned chiefly matters of general policy, like the treatment 
of the proprietors and the support of the government. Even 
in so far as constitutional questions were involved, it was 
in the main the prerogative of the governor and the pri- 
vileges of the assembly that were under discussion and the 
council acted merely as the tool of Cornbury and Ingoldsby. 
Still, in one or two instances the relations of the council and 
the assembly were a subject of controversy. The corru])t 
ring which dominated the council naturally took the position 
that the deliberations of their body were secret, even when 
it was acting as a part of the legislature. It assumed this 
position notably when, after the defeat in the house of the 
measures for the supi)ort of the Nicholson-Vetch expedition 
against Canada, it had named a committee to search the re- 
cords of tlie representatixes with a view to fixing the guilt. 
The house retaliated by naming a committee to examine 
the council records. The council then declared that as a 
special concession only would it allow the representative to 
see such minutes as referred to their house, but no others,^ 
and even this concession was nullified by Ingoldsby's action 
in adjourning the assembly." 

Later, when the assembly undertook an examination into 
the conduct of the expedition and directed Secretary Basse 
to submit the documents relating to it, the council withheld 
them on the ground that it was itself considering them." 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 361. ^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 364. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 30, i/og-io. 



300 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

But these pretentions on the part of the council soon had 
to be surrendered, because Hunter was absolutely unwilling 
to shield the ring of politicians installed by Cornbury. 
When the question of access by the house to the council 
journal was again raised/ Hunter, on address by the as- 
sembly, at once submitted copies of the minutes." He also 
directed the secretary that in the future the minutes of the 
council relating to the passing of bills be kept in a separate 
book. To this legislative journal the house could have ac- 
cess at any time; for a perusal of earlier minutes, however, 
the representatives were to apply to the governor, as they 
contained both legislative and administrative matters, the 
latter of which were admittedly secret.'' Soon after, in spite 
of certain feeble efforts to delay, the council was com- 
pelled to submit the documents relative to the Canada ex- 
pedition to the inspection of the house.^ Hunter also laid 
before the representatives the entry of the reasons of Law- 
rence and Mott,^ two members of the assembly, for voting 
against the bill for supporting the expedition. After these 
persons had been refused by the house the privilege of enter- 
ing their statements upon the assembly journal, they had 
been allowed by the council to make the entry upon their 
minutes, and Secretary Basse had refused to allow the rep- 
resentatives to see the statement. By Hunter's firm action 
the principle was thus established that the council should 
not withhold knowledge as to its legislative proceedings or 
block the house in legitimate investigations. 

Upon one matter, however, the council won a partial vic- 
tory. Lovelace, upon application by the assembly, had 
handed over to that body an address sent by the lieutenant- 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 28, 29, 1710. '^Ibid., Jan. 30, 1710. 

''Ibid., Jan. i, 1710-11. ^Ibid., Jan. 16, 1710-11. 

'Ibid., Jan. 17, 1710-11. 



THE COUNCIL IN LEGISLATION 30 1 

governor and council to the Crown in Cornbury's time, a 
document which reflected upon the representatives/ But 
Hunter did not compel his council to reveal the somewhat 
similar address sent under Ingoldsby.- This check upon the 
popular body was, however, of little account, for, under the 
wise rule of Hunter, Cornbury's corrupt clique was super- 
seded in the council by men who had no reason to desire 
secrecy in their actions. 

But, though the claim to secrecy was the matter which 
most directly concerned the position of the council in the 
legislature, it was, of course, not the only question upon 
which it had met defeat. The long conflict between the 
governor and council and the house under Cornbury, Love- 
lace and Ingoldsby, is described in detail elsewhere. It 
would be useless to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that 
under the first governor the conflict resulted in the entire de- 
feat of practically all legislation. But while Lovelace and 
Ingoldsby were in power numerous important measures 
were enacted which the council endeavored in vain to amend 
radically.^ During this period it became very apparent that 
when the assembly was in earnest in its demands the " upper 
house " must yield. The assembly proved both ready and 
willing to defeat the ends of government entirely rather 
than concede important points. The council, composed as 
it was of royal appointees, could not incur a similar respon- 
sibility, and showed the fact. Thus the ultimate superiority 
of the lower house was established, though, of course, it 
was never formally recognized. 

During the long time between the victory of Hunter over 

^ Assembly Journal, March 9, 1708. ^ Ibid., Jan. 3, 1710-11. 

* Notably in the conflict as to the use of the title " General Assembly " 
in acts. The council was squarely defeated in its efforts to compel the 
assembly to use this title for the entire legislature and not for the house 
of representatives alone. 



302 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



Coxe, Sonmans and Basse, and the end of the union period, 
in which, speaking generally, the council and assembly were 
in agreement, the theory of the general equality of the two 
houses prevailed. Yet the most casual survey of the legis- 
lative histor)^ of the time shows that in practice the assembly 
was a far more important factor than the council. It was 
in the house that the first resolution was regularly adopted 
as to what action should be taken upon the recommenda- 
tions of the governor's speech, a step which decided usually 
what the chief work of the session should be. Nearly all 
the bills originated in the assembly, and that body un- 
doubtedly supplied the initiative force in carrying them 
through. The council, partly through the force of circum- 
stances, partly through the policy of Hunter, dropped into 
the position of an advisory and moderative body rather than 
an initiating one. 

But it must not be supposed that therefore the council be- 
came unimportant. The character and ability of the men 
who composed it, and its recognized position as the legisla- 
tive mouth-piece of the governor, always prevented such a 
result. It continued to amend most of the measures sent 
up to it, and in a great majority of cases these amendments 
were accepted in whole or in part. The readiness with 
which the later assemblies accepted council amendments 
shows the harmony of feeling between the houses, and it 
would not be too fanciful to infer from it also some re- 
cognition of the superior experience and knowledge of the 
council.^ At the same time, in the few instances when mat- 
ters of principle were involved, as in the first session of 
Burnet's rule, the assembly always stood firm. The coun- 
cil always retained the right to introduce bills, and occa- 
sionally did so. In nearly every session some measure ori- 
ginated in the upper house, though the assembly seldom dis- 
' iVfc'zt/ Jersey ArcJiives, vols, xiii and xiv, passim. 



THE COUNCIL IN LEGISLATION 303 

played much enthusiasm for such measures. In the field of 
military affairs especially the council evinced great interest, 
and several measures relating- to this department originated 
there.' 

There was. however, one subject of legislative action re- 
garding which the assembly from the beginning to the end 
of the period claimed and maintained an important super- 
iority over the council. The assembly always regarded 
itself as alone privileged to originate money bills, and gen- 
eral colonial practice was so well established that, however 
much the governor and council endeavored to influence by 
persuasion and patronage the making of liberal grants, 
they only once endeavored to anticipate the action of the 
representatives by introducing an independent bill.' 
Though nothing was said in the commissions or instructions 
of the governors on this point, and no formal recognition 
of this peculiar power of the house was ever made, the 
abandonment of the right to initiate money legislation to 
the assembly was in practice nearly complete. 

In New York and other colonies there had been 
bitter conflicts, not only as to the right to originate 
bills granting money, but also about the power of the 
council to amend money bills when sent up. New Jersey 
did not entirely escape the latter quarrel. When Burnet 
superseded Hunter, he took, as we shall see, a very 
decided stand on the subject of long-term grants of sup- 
port to the government, instead of the grants limited to 
two or three years, which, in spite of their instructions to 
the contrary, earlier executives had always accepted.' Dur- 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiv, pp. 88, 175, 187, 416. 
''Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 418. The house would take no action upon this 
measure. 
''Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 153, 197. 



304 ^'^-fi PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ing his first meeting with the assembly, the council amended 
the bill for support sent up by the house, changing the time 
of the grant from two to twenty-one years/ The house, 
which was already hostile to the new executive, formally 
resolved that such a step was unconstitutional,^ and as the 
council, under Burnet's control, would not give way, the 
measure was lost. Thus the house enforced its contention, 
and though in later sessions it was induced to lengthen the 
grants, it took such action itself. The effort of the council 
under Montgomerie to originate a money bill met speedy 
defeat,^ and the house may be justly regarded as having es- 
tablished the principle for which it contended. The con- 
trol of the purse strings was, of course, as in all Anglo- 
Saxon communities, the one great secret of the superiority 
of the representatives of the people over both the executive 
and the appointive upper house. The governor and the 
councilors were perhaps not vitally affected by the refusal 
of the assembly to pass other measures of which the pro- 
vince stood in need, but, without the grant for support, they 
could receive no salaries. The councilors were, indeed, 
" men of substance," but the expenses involved in service 
on the board must have been not inconsiderable.* Closely 
associated, as they were, with the governor and other royal 
officers, they showed themselves ready to yield to the de- 
mands of the house rather than prevent the appropriations. 
Under such a condition it is perhaps remarkable that the 
council was able to retain the power and influence which 
it actually possessed during the period of the union. 

Before concluding this brief statement of the place of the 
council in legislation, it will be well to mention another 

^JVew Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. I93- 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. iQS- ^ Supra, p. 303- 

'Ibid., vol. iii, p. i6o. Jennings resigned from the council on the 
plea of the expense. 



THE COUNCIL IN LEGISLATION 335 

field of activity of the upper house which, though not actu- 
ally legislative in character, was nevertheless closely con- 
nected with its legislative work. This was the drawing up 
of addresses, congratulatory, patriotic and otherwise, to the 
Crown and to the governors. Some of these addresses 
were hardly more than formal, such as those congratulating 
Queen Anne and King George upon the victories of the 
royal arms.' They, nevertheless, were assurances to the 
home government of the loyalty of the province, and more- 
over gave proof of the zeal of the royal governor whose 
rule inspired such sentiments. In some cases, however, 
the addresses of the council had greater importance. Thus, 
upon the accessions of Lovelace and Hunter, they received 
communications from the council,- which can hardly be re- 
garded as more than bids on the part of the corrupt ring 
in the council for a continuance of the executive favor and 
protection which it had enjoyed under Cornbury and In- 
goldsby. The address of congratulation to Lovelace, in 
which he was hailed as "the embodiment of all perfec- 
tions," was so servile in character as to arouse indignation 
in the province. 

Two of the addresses to the Crown were also notable. 
One of these was drawn up after the great attack upon 
Cornbury by the assembly in 1707.-' In it the council rep- 
resented in fulsome terms the uprightness of the governor, 
and bitterly attacked Morris and Jennings as the inciters 
of disturbance and faction. The other was sent by Ingolds- 
by's council during the agitation over the Nicholson- Vetch 
expedition.* It put the blame for the defeat of the meas- 
ures to provide support for the expedition upon the Quak- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 239; vol. iv, p. 252. 

* Smith, New Jersey and New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 17. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 287. 'Ibid., vol. iii, p. 470. 



3o6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ers, and represented the need of excluding them from 
office. Both addresses are strong evidences of the servility 
and corruption of the council at the time they were pre- 
pared, and as soon as their purport was known they became 
objects of attack by the assembly. There was, indeed, good 
reason for the attempts of the council to prevent the rep- 
resentatives from obtaining copies of these documents. It 
was very fortunate for the Jerseys that the addresses failed 
to create upon the home authorities the impression which 
their unprincipled authors intended. 



CHAPTER XIX 
The General Assembly — Personnel 

It can scarcely be said of the general assembly as of the 
council that its importance was largely due to the distin- 
guished character of the men who composed it. The power 
of the assembly rested upon the fact that it represented the 
public opinion of the province, and, while its members were 
necessarily " men of substance," most of them appear to 
have been only good representatives of localities which sent 
them, and not persons of extensive political experience or 
ability. Such being the case, the important share taken by 
the assembly in the work of carrying on the government 
is even more creditable to its members and to the province. 
Nearly every assembly, however, contained some leaders 
who, to a greater or less degree, directed its policy, and in 
fact most of the distinguished men of the union period 
served at some time or other as representatives. It is true, 
nevertheless, that not many of these persons actually made 
their reputations as assemblymen. Such men as Morris, 
Johnstone, Coxe and Basse are to be remembered chiefly for 
other reasons. But in several cases they added materially 
to their power and reputation by their work in the house. 

The first assembly, chosen in 1703, contained a proprietary 
majority, shown at once by the choice of Thomas Gordon 
as speaker. Among the East Jersey members other notable 
persons were John Reid, John Harrison, Miles Forster and 
Col. Richard Townley. In the West Jersey delegation were 

307 



3o8 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



Thomas Lambert, William Biddle, John Hugg, William 
Hall, Peter Fretwell, and Thomas Gardiner/ 

John Reid is to be remembered chiefly for his work as 
proprietary surveyor. He had acted as deputy to both 
Keith and John Barclay, and in 1702 had succeeded them 
as surveyor-general. A Scot by birth, he was a prominent 
and useful member of the Amboy group of proprietors.^ 
Miles Forster was, like Reid, a proprietor, and had origin- 
ally come into prominence as deputy surveyor to William 
Ha^'gh in 1684. Later he had been collector and receiver 
of the customs at Amboy, under Governor Dongan, but in 
1689 he appears to have been a merchant at New York. 
He returned, however, to Amboy, played a prominent part 
in the political affairs of the province during the opening 
years of royal government,^ and was eventually named by 
Lovelace to succeed Peter Faucbnnier as " receiver-general 
and treasurer." John Harrison, on the other hand, was 
a trader of Elizabethtown, who, unlike most of his towns- 
men, had purchased a proprietary interest. Later he be- 
came prominent as captain of the East Jersey company of 
" fuzilleres," raised for the unfortunate Canada expedition 
of 1709. Harrison was also commissary of the expedition. 
Later he removed to Amboy, where he acted occasionally as 
surveyor. He died in 1724.* William Biddle, Thomas Lam- 
bert, John Kay and John Hugg were long prominent among 
the proprietors of West Jersey,^ while Fretwell, Gardiner 
and Col. Townley all became well known later as members 
of the governor's council. 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. to. 1703. 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
P- 45- 

*Ibid., p. 46. 

*Ibid., p. 86; liber AAA of Commissions, p. 103; New Jersey Ar- 
chives, vol. xiii, p. 415. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, passim. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY— PERSONNEL 309 

The second assembly of 1704 is notable because of the 
determined effort made by Cornbury and his new allies, the 
anti-proprietary party, to control it for the injury of the 
proprietors. In spite of all their influence, however, the 
proprietary party had a bare majority of the members 
elected. The vote for a speaker resulted in a tie between 
Peter Fretwell and John Bowne. whereupon the clerk, An- 
derson, a henchman of Cornbury, cast the deciding- vote for 
Fretwell.' This was no doubt done to disarm suspicion, 
as Fretwell was the proprietary candidate. Among the 
prominent members on the anti-proprietary side were John 
Bowne, Obadiah Bowne, Richard Salter and Richard Harts- 
horne, all of East Jersey. The assembly contained both 
Thomas Gordon and John Barclay, yet the real strength of 
the proprietors lay in the West Jersey delegation, which 
included John Hugg, John Kay, William Hall, Thomas 
Gardiner. Thomas Lambert and Joshua Wright. Other 
notable men in the assembly were Jasper Crane. John Royse 
and Robert Wheeler.- 

The Bownes and Richard Salter, of Monmouth, were 
already prominent as energetic and violent leaders of their 
faction. They had taken a leading part in the revolution 
which had overthrown proprietary rule, as well as in the 
collection of the " Blind Tax," the bribe given Cornbury 
to dissolve the first assembly. From this time forth they 
became staunch supporters of the governor, and were placed 
by him in several positions of trust. ^ The violence of 
Salter made him especially obnoxious to the proprietary 
party, who complained, after he had been made a justice 
of the peace and captain of militia, that he was a person of 
" notorious character." * Richard Hartshorne, a man of 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 14, 1704. * Ibid., Nov. 13, 1704. 

* Liber AAA of Commissions, pp. 15. 29, 42, 44. 
' New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 93, 156. 



3IO 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



apparently much higher type, had come to Monmouth from 
London in 1699, and acquired a large landed interest in the 
vicinity of the Navesinks. He was a Quaker by profes- 
sion, and one of the commissioners named in 1676 to lay out 
West Jerse}^^ Though of considerable influence, he took 
little part in public affairs, but his sympathies seem to have 
been throughout with the settlers of Middletown against the 
proprietors. He had been excluded from the first assembly 
by the proprietary majority on the ground that he was not 
properly qualified.^ The most prominent of the West 
Jersey representatives was perhaps John Kay, later known 
as an active member of the council of proprietors, and for a 
time its vice-president.^ But especial distinction was won 
during the proceedings by Lambert, Gardiner and Wright, 
the three Quaker members illegally excluded from the as- 
sembly by Cornbury, in order to give his supporters a tem- 
porary majority. Robert Wheeler, merchant, of Burling- 
ton, a convert from Quakerism to the Anglican faith, was 
best known for his prominent connection with St. Mary's 
Church.* John Royce was a merchant of New York, who 
had purchased lands on the Raritan,^ but who was not in 
sympathy with the proprietorship. Jasper Crane, of 
Newark, was the son of that Jasper Crane who had been 
one of the original settlers of New Haven, and afterward 
the leader of the Branford people in their removal to the 
Jerseys. 

The third assembly, justly famous because of its gallant 
stand against Cornbury's tyranny, was naturally an unusu- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 329 (note). 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 17, 1703. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. 3, p. 133. 

*Hills, History of the Church in Burli?igton, pp. 29, 45 ct passim. 

^ East Jersey Records, liber A, pp. 99, 166, 189. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY— PERSONNEL 31 j 

ally Strong one, though almost entirely in the hands of the 
proprietary party. Its speaker was the Friend, Samuel 
Jennings, who added to his already great services to the 
colony by his bravery and coolness in the presence of the 
governor. But the real leader in the house was, of course, 
Lewis Morris, who chose this new field for battling against 
the common enemy of proprietors and people. Among the 
East Jersey members were Harrison, Thomas Farmar, 
Elisha Parker, Jasper Crane and John Bowne. In the West 
Jersey representation were John Wills, Thomas Gardiner, 
John Kay and William Hall.^ Of these Parker, Wills, 
Gardiner and Hall were later of the council, while Farmar 
is hereafter to be noticed as second judge of the supreme 
court. After the retirement of Jennings, through illness, 
Gordon succeeded him as speaker. 

Lovelace's first assembly, the fourth under royal rule, was, 
of course, weakened by the absence of Morris and the death 
of Jennings. Like the third, the proprietary majority was 
large. Gordon was again chosen speaker. From East 
Jersey were, in addition, Farmar. Parker, Harrison and 
John Royce. The West Jersey delegation was perhaps 
weaker than usual, but included Gardiner and Kay.^ Mon- 
mouth County sent two new members, Elisha Lawrence and 
Gershom Mott, who represented the violent anti-proprietary 
feeling in that district. They soon made themselves almost 
as obnoxious to the proprietary element as the Bownes and 
Salter." Essex sent John Treat, the son of the leader in 
emigration from Milford,* while Middlesex was represented 
in part by the Quaker, John Kinsey, later speaker of an 

^ Assembly Journal, April 5, 1707. 'Ibid., March 3. 1708-9. 

'They showed their position almost immediately; Assembly Journal, 
March [4, 1708-9. 
^ Ibid., March 5, 1708-9. 



312 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



assembly. He was the son of one of the first commissioners 
of West Jersey, and had been himself one of the earliest 
settlers in that division/ 

The fifth assembly, meeting under Richard Ingoldsby, in 
1709, was rather notable in that the prevailing spirit was 
anti-proprietary, although not violently so. Its speaker was 
the West Jersey proprietor, John Kay.^ Among the mem- 
bers of former assemblies returned were John Harrison, 
Thomas Gordon, John Treat, Elisha Lawrence, Gershom 
Mott, Peter Fretwell, Thomas Lambert and Robert 
Wheeler. Notable new members were Dr. Johnstone, the 
powerful Perth Amboy proprietor, and Major Jacob Spicer. 
of Cape May. Spicer was of Puritan stock, but had re- 
moved to Cape May from Long Island.^ He had com- 
manded the West Jersey contingent in the Nicholson- Vetch 
expedition,* and from that time on played a prominent part 
in the politics of the colony. Spicer was a supporter of 
Col. Coxe, and an opponent of the proprietors. 

The sixth assembly, the first to meet Hunter, was, how- 
ever, once more strong in the proprietary interest.^ Kay, 
of Gloucester, was again speaker. Like him, most of the 
other prominent members had served in former assemblies. 
Burlington sent, with Robert Wheeler, the Huguenot, Isaac 
Decowe, a proprietor, member for a time of the council of 
proprietors, and later treasurer of West Jersey. Burling- 
ton County sent Thomas Lambert and Joshua Humphries, 
both well-known proprietors. The Irishman, Isaac Sharp, 
was now one of the members from Salem County. Later 

' Smith, New Jersey, pp. 92, 103. 

* Assembly Journal, Dec. i, 1709. 

' Stevens, History of Cape May County (Cape May City, 1897), p. 44- 

* Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 104. 
^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 6, 1710. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY— PERSONNEL 31- 

lie acquired considerable prominence in politics, served as 
a member of the council of West Jersey proprietors, and be- 
came colonel of militia.^ As in the last assembly, Cape 
May was represented by Fretwell and Spicer. The town 
of Perth Amboy sent Dr. Johnstone and the ex-Quaker, 
John Reid; Middlesex was represented in part by Farmar; 
and Essex by John Treat. Monmouth returned Gershom 
Mott, but sent with him William Lawrence, a somewhat less 
resolute opponent of the proprietors." From Berg-en came 
William Sandford, the former member of Cornbury's coun- 
cil. Col. Sandford was, however, expelled by the proprie- 
tary majority during the session. 

Hunter's second assembly, the .=;eventh, was notable for 
the final bitter conflict which occurred in it between the sup- 
porters of the governor and those of Col. Coxe. the last 
powerful representative of Cornbury's old ring. The as- 
sembly was originally under the control of Coxe, who served 
himself as representative of Gloucester, and was chosen 
speaker.^ The other Gloucester member was Richard Bull, 
at one time a member of the council of proprietors,* but a 
staunch supporter of Coxe. Others of the faction from 
West Jersey were Jacob Spicer, Jacob Hewlings, W^illiam 
Clews, and William Hall, the renegade Quaker. William 
and Elisha Lawrence, of Monmouth, were, as always, will- 
ing to take part in any attack upon the proprietors. Hun- 
ter's supporters included Farmar, Harrison, Kinsey, and 
from West Jersey, Isaac Sharp and Samuel vSmith, of Bur- 
lington. Essex was represented by Col. Josiah Ogden, of 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 59; liber AAA of Commissions, p. 
158; Minnies of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. 2, p. t 
et seq.; bk. 4, p. 64. 

•Assembly Journal. May 23. \yit. ^ Ibid., April 4, 1716. 

''Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 41. 



314 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



Newark, and Joseph Bonnell, of Elizabethtown. The latter 
was a man long prominent in the affairs of his town, one 
of the committee of seven to defend the land titles of the 
associates, and later first mayor of Elizabethtown/ 

But the expulsion of Coxe and his followers during the 
second session changed the character of the seventh as- 
sembly completely, and made it, like earlier bodies, a pro- 
prietary instrument. John Kinsey was chosen speaker in 
place of Coxe, and the choice warmly approved by Hunter.- 
But of the persons chosen in room of the expelled represen- 
tatives only two were of great prominence. These were 
Philip Schuyler, later of the council, and Jeremiah Basse, 
who, at the close of his long and troubled career, thus re- 
appeared as representative of Cape May. The real leader 
of the assembly was, however. Governor Hunter himself. 

The course of the eighth assembly, which met Governor 
Burnet in 1721, indicates clearly the fading away of the old 
party lines. Of this body Dr. Johnstone was speaker,^ a 
post which was more and more coming to carry with it 
the leadership of the house. Among former members re- 
turned were Ogden, Bonnell, William Lawrence and Isaac 
Sharp. Many new members, however, appear, but among 
them only Robert Lettis Hooper and William Trent are 
notable. Both of these gentlemen must be noticed later in 
connection with their work as chief justices.* 

The ninth assembly, beginning in 1727, and chosen be- 
cause of the accession of a new king rather than for any 
political necessity, did not differ in a marked way from 

'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 31c, 320. 
' Assembly Journal, May 21, 1716. 

*At the beginning of the second session he declared that he -,vas un- 
able to attend because of sickness, and William Trent was chosen. 
* Assembly Journal, March 7, 1721-22. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY— PERSONNEL ^i^ 

its predecessor in personnel/ Dr. Johnstone was again 
speaker, and the membership included John Kinsey, Jr.. 
Thomas Farmar and Joseph Bonnell. Andrew Johnstone, 
the doctor's second son, later a man of prominence among 
the proprietors, represented Amboy with his father." 
Mahlon Stacey, son of one of the original Yorkshire pur- 
chasers in West Jersey, who had won a seat from Burling- 
ton County after a contested election with Colonel Coxa dur- 
ing the last session of the eighth assembly, were again re- 
turned." An interesting feature was the reappearance of 
the old adventurer and speculator. Peter Sonmans, as rep- 
resentative of Bergen. That, after his long and discredi- 
table career, he was thus able to reenter public affairs, is not 
highly creditable to the province. Among other things, the 
ninth assembly was marked by the advance in the influence 
of the able politician, John Kinsey, Jr., who now undoubt- 
edly shared with Dr. Johnstone the leading power in the 
assembly. 

The tenth and last assembly of the union period, which 
met in 1730 under Montgomerie, and later in 1733 under 
Cosby, showed no sweeping change in membership.^ In- 
deed, except when party strife was keen, as under Ingoldsby 
and Hunter, it is very noticeable that most of the members 
of the assembly served for considerable periods. The house 
included Dr. Johnstone, Peter Sonmans. Mahlon Stacey, 
and John Kinsey, Jr. Aaron Leaming, of Cape May, 
known to students as one of the compilers of the "Grants 
and Concessions." was serving his second term. The choice 

' Assembly Journal, Dec. 9, 1727. 

-Whitehead. Cofitributions lo the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 72. 

'^ Assembly Journal, July 20. 1725. 
* Ibid., May 7, 1730. 



3i6 THE PROVINCE OF NEIV JERSEY 

of a speaker, however, resulted in favor of John Kinsey.^ 
It is, indeed, unfortunate that more is not known regarding 
the personality of this interesting leader, as he had un- 
doubtedly become one of the strongest forces in the pub- 
lic life of the province. To so able a critic as James Alex- 
ander, Kinsey seemed a man of intelligence and good sense. 
He nevertheless regarded him, because of his championship 
of popular issues, as a seeker after popularity.^ But to a 
modern student, the manner in which Kinsey had revived 
and brought forward such issues as that of separation from 
New York and the demand for a three years' limitation 
upon the duration of assemblies, bespeaks a democratic and 
statesmanlike instinct which at once arouses sympathy. 
The history of the province of New Jersey has lost some- 
thing because fate has been unkind to the memory of the 
Middlesex representative. 

* Smith, New Jersey, p. 103. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 262. Kinsey was later chief justice 
of Pennsylvania. 



CHAPTER XX 

The General Assembly — Constitution and Legal 

Power 

It is not the function of an institutional sketch like this 
to determine whether, under the British constitution of the 
eighteenth century, the people of the Jerseys had an in- 
herent right to an assembly or other form of representation, 
or whether the privilege of choosing one of the houses of 
the legislature was merely a privilege conferred upon them 
by the Crown. Under proprietary rule East and West 
Jersey had always had elective legislative bodies, though 
they had sometimes gone years without meetings of their 
assemblies, and it would have been absolutely impossible to 
govern them satisfactorily without allowing representation. 
The logic of events has, moreover, given them the " un- 
alienable right " to govern themselves. 

Nevertheless, the constitution of the assembly, and to 
some extent its powers, were based upon the commissions 
and instructions of the royal governors. Cornbury's com- 
mission directed him to rule in accordance with laws made 
by him with the consent of the council and the assembly. 
Such laws were not to be repugnant to, but, as near as might 
be. agreeable with, the laws of England. But within three 
months they were to be submitted to the Crown for approval 
or disallowance, and all laws not previously approved might 
be at any time thereafter disallowed, and were then to be 

[3U 



3i8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

void. Cornbury himself was given a veto over all laws, 
and had full power to call, adjourn and dissolve assemblies.* 

The instructions gave more specific directions. For the 
better uniting of the province, Cornbury was ordered to call 
a general assembly with all convenient speed. It was to sit 
first at Amboy and then at Burlington; thereafter it was to 
meet at the two towns alternately, unless the governor, bv 
advice of the council, should otherwise appoint. The as- 
sembly was to consist of twenty-four members, two chosen 
by the inhabitants householders of Perth Amboy, two by the 
inhabitants householders of Burlington, ten by the free- 
holders of East Jersey, and ten by the freeholders of West 
Jersey. Members of the assembly must have one thousand 
acres in their own right within the division for which they 
were chosen; electors must have one hundred acres in their 
division. The number of representatives and the manner of 
choosing was to be altered only by act of assembly, con- 
firmed by the Crown.' 

In passing acts, the style of " governor, council and as- 
sembly " was to be observed and no other. Cornbury was 
to take care that different subjects were not mixed in the 
same act, and, as stated in his commission, copies of all acts 
were, within three months, to be sent to the Crown for ap- 
proval or disallowance.^ The assembly was given the im- 
portant right of examining from time to time all accounts 
of expenditures disposed of under laws made b)^ them.* The 
assembly was, of course, to have a clerk, who was to fur- 
nish a copy of its journal that it might be submitted to the 
home government." At the beginning of the session the 
governor was to see that the proper oaths were taken by all 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 490, 492-494. 

"* Ibid., vol. ii. p. 510. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 511, 512. 

^Ibid., vol. ii, p. 515. ^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 516. 



GENERAL ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION AND POWER -^IQ 

representatives ; Quakers, however, had the right to sign de- 
clarations instead of taking the oaths. ^ 

The instructions also placed several direct limitations upon 
the action of the assembly. Thus, no act was to be passed 
changing the value of coin (whether foreign or English), 
unless express permission was given. So, also, the settled 
revenue was not to be lessened except by the previous con- 
sent of the home government. These prohibitions, how- 
ever, in practice had little importance. 

It was in accordance with Cornbury's commission and in- 
structions that the first assembly of the royal province of 
New Jersey was elected and began its work. But it must be 
remembered that the instructions were not publicly known. 
Nor could it be correctly maintained that they covered the 
entire field of power and privilege which the assembly was 
understood by both the home authorities and the inhabitants 
of the colony to possess. It was certainly expected that the 
representatives of the new province should be allowed all 
the rights and powers commonly held by the assemblies of 
other royal provinces, rights and powers which, whatsoever 
their legal basis, were similar in character to those of the 
English House of Commons. 

When, therefore, the first assembly met, it proceeded to 
choose a speaker, whom, in accordance with the custom, it 
presented to Cornbury for approval.- This practice was 
followed by all succeeding assemblies, but the approval of 
the governor was hardly more than a form, since several 
times during the union period governors approved speakers 
to whom they were bitterly hostile.^ Next the house re- 
quested the following privileges : that the members and their 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 521-522. 

"^ Assembly Jouj'nal, Nov. 10, 1703. 

'Cornbury approved Jennings and Gordon, and Hunter, Coxe. 



320 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



servants might be free from arrest during the sessions ; that 
they might have free access to the governor's person; that 
they might have free speech and a favorable construction on 
all debates ; and that in case of difference of opinion between 
the houses a committee of the council m'ght be named to 
confer with one from the house to adjust and reconcile. 
All of these requests were duly confirmed by Cornbury ex- 
cept the last, which he rejected as an innovation. Hence- 
forth they became practically a part of the constitution of 
the house. When succeeding speakers were chosen, they 
regularly requested " the usual privileges," and they were 
always granted.^ Even the fourth privilege, rejected by 
Cornbury in 1703, was always given in practice. Because 
of its formal rejection, however, it could not be said to be 
one of " the usual privileges." 

There was no change in the constitution or legal power of 
the house until the first meeting of the second assembly in 
the autumn of 1704.^ This was the session made notorious 
by the exclusion of the three West Jersey members through 
the illegal and tyrannical interference of Cornbury. It will 
be recalled that this action on the part of the governor was 
part of a plan arranged between Cornbury and the leaders 
of the anti-proprietary party, in accordance with which, in 
return for the support of his excellency against the claims 
of the proprietors, the anti-proprietary faction undertook 
" to answer the ends of government." During the period 
in which the new friends of the governor were able to main- 
tain their ill-gotten majority, an act was passed " for alter- 
ing the present constitution and regulating the election of 

^Assembly Journal, Nov. 15, 1704, for the example at the opening of 
the second assembly. 

^The first assembly had worked upon a bill for regulating the choice 
of representatives which aimed simply to enact the requirement of the 
instructions, but Cornbury cut short the session before it was passed. 



GENERAL ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION AND POWER 32 T 

representatives to serve in general assembly." ^ This was 
a political measure intended to secure the permanent control 
of the assembly to the anti-proprietary party, by lowering 
the qualifications for the suffrage, and thus admitting to 
the ballot the poorer element in East Jersey, which was 
mainly anti-proprietary in feeling. But while the motive 
for its passage was apparently an unworthy one, the act 
itself was certainly a step in the direction of democracy. It. 
moreover, corrected certain other defects in the method of 
choosing representatives which had already led to well- 
merited complaint. 

The new act declared that henceforth representatives 
should be elected by a majority of the freeholders of each 
county. It thus did away with the requirement of owner- 
ship of one hundred acres for the suffrage. It also abolished 
the pernicious practice of having the ten members for each 
division chosen at some one point in the division arbitrarily 
selected by the high sheriff of the division, a practice which 
had already enabled the sheriff of East Jersey, Thomas Gor- 
don, to secure the election of proprietary members to the 
first assembly against the wishes of a majority of the elec- 
tors of the division." The new act endeavored to apportion 
representation among the several counties according to popu- 
lation. It gave Bergen one member, Essex three, Middle- 
sex two, Amboy two. Somerset one, and Monmouth three. 
In West Jersey. Burlington town was assigned two, Bur- 
lington County two. Gloucester three, Salem four, and 
Cape May one. As to qualifications of representatives, it 
was said merely that they should be inhabitants and free- 
holders of the division for which they were chosen, and 
freeholders of the county whence they were elected. The 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 12, 1704. 

"^ New Jersey Archives . vol. iii, pp. 14. 276. 



322 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



house itself was to be the judge of the quahfications of its 
members/ 

In h"s correspondence with the lords of trade, Cornbury 
argued that a change in the constitution of the house was 
necessary, because men weh fitted to serve were debarred by 
not having one thousand acres of land, though they had 
many times its value in money. He said that, as a result, 
several members of the first assembly were elected simply 
because of their ownership of the one thousand acres, 
though they were so ignorant that they could not read or 
write or answer a question. His excellency also explained 
the difficulty of compelling electors to travel two hundred 
miles in order to vote." The arguments of Cornbury, of 
course, are not to be taken seriously. A purely political 
motive was responsible for the passage of the act, and it 
was ent'rely too democratic to be acceptable to the home 
authorities. With the other important laws of the session, 
it was disallowed by the Crown.^ 

But the inconvenience of the former constitution of the 
assembly had at least been made clear. An additional in- 
struction was therefore issued to Cornbury in April, 1705, 
which he was ordered to proclaim in a public manner.* 
Henceforth two representatives were to be chosen by the 
inhabitants householders of the " City or Town " of Perth 
Amboy and two by the freeholders of each of the five 
counties of East Jersey. Two representatives were to 
be chosen in similar manner by the inhabitants house- 
holders of the town of Burlington, and two by those of 
Salem. The freeholders of each of the four counties of 

^ Laws Enacted in 1704 (Bradford print). 
"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 54, 72, 
'^ Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 
* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 96. 



GEXERAL ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION AND POWER 32:5 

West Jersey were also to elect two representatives for each 
county. The manifest object of this apportionment was, 
of course, to secure equahty between the two divisions. 
The property quahfications were restored, but it was now 
ordained that electors should possess one hundred acres of 
land or fifty pounds sterling in personal property; while 
representatives must have one thousand acres or five hun- 
dred pounds sterling. Nothing was said about a residence 
qualification. No alterations in the constitution of the as- 
sembly were to be made save by act of assembly. Corn- 
bury accepted the new arrangement with the best grace pos- 
sible, merely telling the lords of trade that, since the pro- 
prietors of West Jersey were still tenants in common, it was 
d fficult to say whether any one of them had one thousand 
acres in his own right or not.^ 

The disallowance of the act of the second assembly en- 
abled the proprietary party to regain control of the as- 
sembly, and to retain it for the remainder of Cornbury's 
rule. No further change in the character or position of the 
house was made, and when Lovelace succeeded Cornbury. 
the additional instruction of 1705 was made a part of his 
regular instructions.^ 

But the fourth assembly, which met under Lovelace in the 
spring of 1708-9, passed an " act regulating the qualifica- 
tion of representatives to serve in general assembly," which 
modified the effect of the royal instructions by substituting 
fifty pounds and five hundred pounds current money as the 
value of the personal property qualifying persons for the 
suffrage and the right to serve as representatives for the 
corresponding amounts sterling which the instructions had 
ordered. The act also declared that each representative 
should be a freeholder of the division for which he was 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. iig. "^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 318. 



324 ^^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

chosen, and that the assembly should be the judge of the 
qualificat'ons of its members. With these changes and ad- 
ditions, the statute repeated the requirements of the in- 
structions/ It is to be noticed that this law reducing the 
property qualifications was the work of an assembly con- 
trolled by the proprietary party, which naturally repre- 
sented such aristocratic feeling as ex'sted in the province. 
Like the other acts of Lovelace's time, it was, however, 
owing to the neglect, if not something worse, of Basse, 
never sent home for the action of the Crown. ^ It neverthe- 
less remained in recognized force in the colony, was re- 
printed in the books of statutes, and, except where sightly 
modified by later legislation, regulated the choice of repre- 
sentatives until Burnet's administration. 

A change of some significance was made by the fifth as- 
sembly, under Ingoldsby, a body which was somewhat fav- 
orably inclined to the lieutenant-governor. It was enacted 
in the spring of 1709-10, that henceforth representatives 
must be actually residents with their families of the Jerseys, 
and that they should have an estate sufficient to qualify them 
within the division for which they were chosen.^ It was 
asserted by Hunter, who had every reason to judge cor- 
rectly, that this was a partisan measure a'med to disqualify 
Dr. Johnstone and Capt. Farmar, the aggressive proprie- 
tary leaders who were residing in New York.* 

There are also two other matters worthy of note during 
the period of Lovelace and Ingoldsby. The twenty-second 
article of Lovelace's instructions, repeated in the sets of 
later governors, ordered him not to assent to the passage of 
any unusual or extraordinary bill effecting the prerogat've 
or property of the Queen or her subjects, unless a draft of 

'AUinson, op. cit. * New Jersey Archives , vol. iv, pp. 45, 56. 

* Allinson, op. cit. ^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 56. 



3^5 

the measure had first been submitted to the Crown and ap- 
proved, or unless there were a clause in the bill suspending 
its operation until the royal assent had been given. ^ While 
this was a command directed primarily to the governor, it 
was in effect a limitation imposed by the instructions upon 
the house. The restriction proved, however, hardly of 
much importance in practice. 

A more important change was brought about by another 
law of the fifth assembly. An act for ascertaining the 
place of the sitting of the representatives ^ ordered that 
henceforth the assembly should meet only at Burlington, 
instead of at Amboy and Burlington alternately as hereto- 
fore.^ This was apparently another slap at the Amboy 
clique of East Jersey proprietors in the interest of Ingoldsby 
and Coxe. 

When Robert Hunter was commissioned, a peculiar com- 
plication arose, because in drawing his instructions the home 
authorities acted in ignorance of the acts passed under 
Lovelace, and in d'sregard of those passed under Ingoldsby. 
Hunter's instructions were a mere repetition of those of 
Lovelace, and therefore contained the same statement re- 
garding qualifications for the assembly as Cornbury's addi- 
tional instruction of 1705. The assembly was also ordered 
to meet alternately at Burlington and Amboy.^ The mat- 
ter of qualifications gave no immediate trouble. In a letter 
to Hunter sent with the instructions, the lords of trade in- 
formed him that they had no objection to the act of Corn- 
bury's time, altering the requirements for representatives and 
electors, save that it did not fix a definite property quali- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 320. 
'Allinson, op. cit. (the act is given by title only). 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 67. 221, 230. 
*Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 2, 222. 



326 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ficat'on, and that they were willing that, if the property- 
qualification was too high, it should be reduced by act of 
the legislature/ But the question as to the place of sess'on 
was more troublesome. On this point there was now a di- 
rect contradiction between the law of the province and the 
instructions of the Crown. 

Hunter's council, controlled at first by the old cl'que. split 
as to whether it was expedient to obey the royal commands 
or the recent act, but Hunter, with his usual prudence, de- 
cided to meet his assembly first at Burlington, " there being 
hardly any house at the place called Amboy." - When the 
sixth assembly came together. Hunter tried to avoid further 
difficulties by obtaining the repeal of the recent acts regard- 
ing the place of sessons and the necessity of actual resi- 
dence for a seat in the assembly. But though the assembly, 
again under proprietary control, was agreeable to the sub- 
stitution of the provisions of the instructions in the form 
of new acts, the council defeated the measure.^ In his able 
letter to the lords of trade of May 7, 171 1, Hunter there- 
fore took the position that, since the act requiring sessions 
at Burlington only was contrary to the instructions, it was 
of an " extraordinary nature," and consequently of no 
force till formally approved by the Crown. He therefore 
declared his intention of calling the next assembly at Am- 
boy,* and actually did so.^ As the second session of the 
sixth assembly was held to provide means for the second 
Canada expedition, his opponents deemed it inadvisable to 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 3. The reducticn had of course 
already been made by the act under Lovelace. 

"-Ibid., vol. iv, p. II. 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 55. It appears to have been " smothered " in com- 
mittee; ibid., vol. xiii, p. 450. 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 67. 

'^ Assembly Journal, July 6, 1711. 



GENERAL ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION AND POWER 327- 

protest. Subsequently, however, Hunter was informed by 
the lords of the official confirmation of the act fixing meet- 
ings of the assembly at Burlington.^ 

Hunter met the third session of the sixth assembly at 
Burlington. But before the seventh assembly met Queen 
Anne was dead, and Hunter had received a new commis- 
sion and a new set of instructions as the representative of 
George I." The new instructions again ordered alternate 
meetings at Burlington and Amboy,^ and Hunter, basing 
himself upon these and the advice of his council, called the 
session at the latter place.* The seventh assembly, however, 
was under control of Coxe, and at once denied the right of 
the governor to overrule a law of the province.^ But the 
result of the conflict was the expulsion of Coxe and his 
friends from the house, and the ruin of their party in the 
province. 

The policy of Hunter was of very doubtful legality in 
spite of his success. Yet he certainly had no desire to act 
arbitrarily. To put an end to the whole difficulty a new act 
was passed by the re-formed seventh assembly, repealing the 
law of Ingoldsby's time which had caused so much trouble," 
on the ground that it was " contrary to royal instructions 
and prejudicial to the interests of the eastern division." 
Henceforth the old practice of having alternate sessions was 
unquestioned. 

The province was quite satisfied to allow things to re- 
main as they were during the rest of Hunter's successful 
rule. The growth of the province in population and wealth, 
however, rendered certain changes necessary during the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 227. "^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 215. 

^Assembly Journal. April 6, 1716. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 6. 
"Assembly Journal, April r-o, 1716. 

* Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 



328 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

administration of Burnet. After his difficulties with the 
third session of the seventh assembly, Burnet wrote to the 
lords of trade recommending that the apportionment of rep- 
resentatives be changed so as to give the new county of 
Hunterdon the two representatives then assigned to Salem 
Town/ He explained that the inhabitants of Hunterdon 
were numerous, but still had to journey to Burlington to 
vote; while Salem was " a fishing village " of twenty houses 
and seven or eight votes. His excellency also represented 
that the two members from Salem had been the ringleaders 
against him, and yet they were sure of reelection, while 
Hunterdon was loyal and would send good men. The only 
objection to the alteration of the system of representation 
by the issue of an additional instruction was the existence 
of the law of Lovelace's time which confirmed the present 
arrangement. But Burnet raised the point that the act 
existed only in print, and had never been sent home for 
confirmation. In any case, however, such act, being op- 
posed in tenor to several things in the instructions, would 
be void. 

The question as to the relative validity of the act and the 
instructions was referred by the lords of trade to the at- 
torney-general, who reported in September, 1723, in favor 
of the view of Burnet. If the act had been confirmed it 
would have held good, but such was not the case. The 
method of representation was founded upon an instruction, 
and had several times been altered by instructions under 
Cornbury. The attorney-general held, therefore, that the 
Crown possessed the power to alter.^ Soon afterward an 
additional instruction was issued to Burnet, giving to Hun- 
terdon County the two representatives of Salem Town.^ 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 12. 

•Ibid., vol. V, p. 72. ^ Ibid., vol. v. pp. 83, 84. 



GENERAL ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION AND POWER 329 

The new arrangement went into effect apparently without 
protest, but the ninth assembly, the last of Burnet's time, in 
which the patriotic and aggressive John Kinsey was a 
power, enacted the terms of the additional instruction into 
a provincial statute/ It does not appear that the law con- 
firming the change was suggested by the governor, though 
he approved of it. The statute stated that the change was 
made because the late King George had been pleased to 
alter h:s instructions, and because it was " highly reason- 
able " that the numerous inhabitants of Hunterdon County 
should have the right to choose representatives. This was 
the last change in the system of representation made dur- 
ing the union period. 

In 1725, also under Burnet, the first law was enacted for 
regulating elections, and laying a penalty on all officers and 
other persons who interfered with the polls.^ The two 
previous acts regarding the qualifications of representatives 
had made sheriffs who made false returns guilty of a crime, 
but the entire system of conducting elections had never 
been stated before in detail. The new law ordered that 
all sheriffs, or other officers to whom writs for the election 
of members of assembly were addressed, should forthwith 
give public notice of the day and place of election, by put- 
ting up advertisements, at least twenty days before the 
time of election, at three of the most public places in their 
county or town. On the day named they should, between 
the hours of ten and twelve, proceed to the election by read- 
ing their writs, and should not declare the choice upon the 
view nor adjourn the election from that place to any other 

' AUinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 

"^ Ibid., This act was the result of the disputed election between Col. 
Coxe and the Quaker, Mahlon Stacey, in which Weston the sheriff of 
Burlington had unduly favored Coxe; New Jersey Archives, vol. v, 
p. 105. 



330 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

place without the consent of the candidates, nor should 
they by unnecessary adjournment delay the election. But 
they should, if a poll were required, fairly and indifferently 
take the poll from day to day and time to time until all the 
electors there present were polled. The sheriffs were com- 
manded to appoint one clerk and one inspector for each 
candidate, upon the nomination of the candidates. The 
clerks were to take oath to act fairly, and were then to take 
the poll by setting down the names of the electors and the 
place of their abode and the person they voted for. The 
sheriff was to give a copy .of the poll to any who desired it, 
upon the payment of a reasonable fee. If any elector was 
questioned, an oath was to be administered to him, while 
Quakers might affirm to the same effect. Penalties were 
set for persons who conveyed lands to others to enable them 
to vote, subject to agreement to recover them. Such grants 
were to be held as absolute, and both parties concerned were 
to forfeit ten pounds to any one who should sue. A sheriff 
not acting in accordance with the law, or returning a per- 
son not elected, was to forfeit three hundred pounds, one- 
third to the Crown, one-third to the poor of the place, and 
one-third to the person aggrieved that should sue. All brib- 
ery and corruption were prohibited, and any candidate prac- 
ticing them was to be disabled from sitting, even if elected. 
Further, any one who slandered the opposing candidate or 
influenced votes by indirect means was to forfeit twenty 
pounds, one-half to the Crown and one-half to the person 
who sued for the same. To the student of modern politics 
this first election law of 1725 contains much that is inter- 
esting as well as amusing. 

The only other important matter in Burnet's administra- 
tion relating to the legal position of the assembly was the 
passage by the ninth assembly, largely through the efforts of 
John Kinsey, of a triennial act providing for a meeting of 



GENERAL ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION AND POWER 331 

the legislature at least once in three years and for triennial 
elections. This act was assented to very reluctantly by Bur- 
net, and was disallowed by the home government/ 

The instructions of Montgomerie contain no articles al- 
tering essentially the constitution of the assembly." He was, 
however, forbidden to assent to acts for the issue of bills of 
credit unless they contained a clause suspending their oper- 
ation until approved by the Crown.^ In practice this proved 
a decided limitation upon the house. Montgomerie was also 
warned not to approve of any act running for less than two 
years, as in such cases the law would expire before the 
Crown could act upon it ; nor was he to assent to any act 
once disallowed or to an act disallowing any statute al- 
ready passed, even though it had not received the royal 
approbation, unless express leave was first obtained from 
the Crown.* These clauses were not, strictly speaking, legal 
checks upon the power of the assembly, though they, of 
course, amounted to the same thing. 

Under Montgomerie the tenth assembly, of which Kinsey 
was speaker, passed an act for the freedom of assemblies." 
This act ordered that if any member of the assembly ac- 
cepted a place of profit from the Crown or governor, his 
place should become void, and a writ for the election of a 
new member should be issued. So also anyone who, by 
reason of any office, pension, or salary from the Crown, was 
by the laws of Great Britain disabled from sitting in par- 

'AUinson, Statutes of New Jersey; New Jersey Archives, vol. v, 
p. 192. 

-His 13th article, however, again directed that the requirement in 
personal property be five hundred pounds sterling for members of assem- 
bly, and fifty pounds sterling for electors. He was told to secure an 
act in conformity to the article. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 173. 

* Ibid., vol. V, p. 174. ^Allinson, op. cit. 



332 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



liament, should also be disabled from sitting in the assembly 
of the province, and, if any such person should presume to 
sit, he was to forfeit fifty pounds. 

During the brief and unsatisfactory rule of Cosby there 
were no further alterations. 

Such was the legal position of the assembly of the pro- 
vince of New Jersey as defined in the commissions and in- 
structions of the governors and the laws of the province. 
It can hardl)'^ be said, however, that these convey a very 
accurate idea as to the place the assembly actually occupied 
in the machinery of government. Even more than in the 
case of the governor and of the council, a study of the as- 
sembly at work is requisite for him who would realize what 
the lower house really contributed to the history of the 
province. A most vital part of the assembly's work can be 
best understood by observing it in conflict with the execu- 
tive and the upper house. Before considering the great 
political struggles of the province's history, however, some 
statement as to what the assembly habitually did in carry- 
ing out the legal powers treated in this present section is 
highly desirable. 



CHAPTER XXI 
The General Assembly in Action 

It is the purpose of this section to indicate briefly the 
manner in which the general assembly performed its 
duties, and to show the customary sphere of its activity 
in practice. Elsewhere we shall consider in detail the 
struggle between this body and the executive, and note 
the steps by which it slowly but materially increased its 
powers at the expense of the governor and council. 

Sessions of the assembly were held regularly upon call 
by the governor.' Their frequency depended, of course, 
upon the political circumstances of the province. In all 
twenty-seven meetings took place between 1703 and 
1738. Before the accession of Burnet, sessions were 
more frequent, owing to the short periods for which the 
revenue was voted. In Burnet's administration of seven 
years only four sessions were held ; Montgomerie sum- 
moned two ; while during the long interval from the 
death of Montgomerie to the commissioning of Lewis 
Morris, in 1738, only one meeting (1733) took place. 
Except upon great necessity the sessions took place in 
the spring, beginning in March or April, and running 
into the summer, or late in the autumn, and continuing 
through the winter, in some cases well into March. The 
winter session was regarded as especially desirable, be- 
cause during this season the members were not under 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 492. 



334 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

necessity of attending to their plantations — a circum- 
stance which recalls vividly to our minds the extremely 
rustic character of the province.' 

The governors used very actively their power to ad- 
journ, prorogue and dissolve."" Hunter and Burnet, with 
real political tact, adjourned sessions, upon the request 
of the house, to seasons more convenient for the mem- 
bers. ^ On the other hand, both Burnet and Cosby em- 
ployed their power to adjourn as a punishment intending 
to bring intractable assemblies to their senses.'* Burnet 
adjourned the seventh assembly from day to day for 
three weeks. Adjournment proved, nevertheless, a poor 
means of discipline, as the effect was simply to irritate 
the representatives. In 1722 Burnet began the practice 
of ending sessions by requesting the house to adjourn 
itself to a given date.^ This was apparently intended as 
a compliment to the assembly, but the form was usually 
followed later. 

No accurate general statement can be made as to the 
length of assemblies. There could be little complaint of 
the infrequency of elections, for during the union period 
only two houses lasted more than three years. ^ Yet it 
can scarcely be said that the governors complied with 
the wishes of the colony in this regard. Cornbury called 
new assemblies because the existing ones were intract- 
able, and he hoped to secure more compliant ones. 
Lovelace and Ingoldsby ruled for too short a time to 
give any offense. Both Hunter and Burnet showed a 
decided inclination to retain satisfactory assemblies. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv. pp. 80, 81. 

'■Ibid., vol. ii, p. 494. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 28-9, 80-1, 287-8. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv. pp. 177, 482. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 234. 

*This statement does not, however, include the tenth assembly, since 
the legislative power was virtually suspended after the death of Cosby. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 33- 

Hunter dissolved the sixth assembly only because of the 
death of Anne, as the death of the sovereign was held to 
put an end to an assembly as to a House of Commons, 
and the seventh assembly he retained for the rest of his 
administration, a period of four years. Burnet retained 
this house which had been so compliant to Hunter, but 
it gave him so much trouble that he dissolved it after 
one session. The eighth assembly he retained for four 
years, until it was terminated by the death of George I. 
The policies of Montgomerie and Cosby, with regard to 
the calling of new sssemblies, could not take shape be- 
cause of their untimely deaths. Montgomerie held one 
election, as he had disagreed with the ninth assembly, 
but Cosby paid little attention to New Jersey anyway, 
and only troubled himself to call one session of the ex- 
isting house. 

It is interesting to note that, in spite of the general 
excellence of Hunter's rule, his use of the power of dis- 
solution was perhaps more questionable than that of any 
other governor. When the death of Anne put an end 
to the sixth assembly, and the election for the new 
body was carried by the faction of Coxe, Talbot and 
other enemies of the governor. Hunter did, indeed, call 
a meeting of this new house, but, as was very frequently 
the case, the members were slow in assembling, and his 
excellency seized advantage of this fact to dissolve the 
assembly before it was organized. In so doing he acted 
upon the advice of his council, but the only reason given 
was that the house contained certain "notorious per- 
sons ! " ' Even Cornbury had not gone as far as this. 
In the new elections, however, Coxe was again success- 
ful, and Hunter, after all, was obliged to meet the issue 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 4. 



336 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

which he had hoped to escape. Hunter's conduct in this 
matter, as well as his policy of retaining the compliant 
sixth and seventh assemblies, was evidently the result of 
the fact that he had assumed the practical leadership of 
one of the political parties of the province. However 
much we may condemn his policy, it must, nevertheless, 
be remembered that he did not act from tyrannical 
motives, like Cornbury or Cosby, During his rule the 
assembly was certainly representative of the public 
opinion of the province, and after the agitation of Coxe 
had died away its work gave general satisfaction. 

Previous to the appointment of Burnet, it was the 
common view in the province that the appointment of a 
new governor, like the accession of a new sovereign, 
required the choice of a new house. It is true that 
Ingoldsby held a session of the fourth assembly after the 
death of Lovelace, but, as he was merely a lieutenant- 
governor, this was not a precedent. Burnet, however, 
chose to retain the seventh assembly, which had done 
such good work for Hunter. The members assembled 
at his command, but refused to meet or organize as a 
house." A deadlock with the governor followed, but 
Burnet eventually succeeded in pursuading them that his 
course was legal, and a regular, though very unsatis- 
factory, session was held. Later the right of the gov- 
ernor to continue an existing assembly was approved by 
the lords of trade,' and when both Montgomerie and 
Cosby saw fit to continue existing assemblies, their 
power was not disputed. 

With the exception of the short period during which 
the act of Ingoldsby's time fixing the place of the ses- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 8, 58; vol. xiv, pp. 145-6. 
-Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 183, 186. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 337 

sions at Burlington was effective, the meetings of the 
assembly were held alternately at Burlington and Perth 
Amboy. Only one meeting during the entire union 
period took place elsewhere, and that was the third ses- 
sion of the seventh assembly under Hunter, which was 
held at Chesterfield or Crosswicks, a hamlet in Burling- 
ton County, because the small-pox was raging in the 
town of Burlington itself.' Burnet called the last session 
of his time at Amboy, although the previous session had 
been held at that place. The governor, by the advice of 
his council, was empowered by his instructions to change 
the regular order for reasons of weight, though nothing 
was said about this in the act of 1716. Burnet explained 
to the members that he summoned them at Amboy 
because he was momentarily expecting the arrival of his 
successor, and wished to be near New York to receive 
him.^ The house replied, in an address, that the custom 
of having alternate sessions gave great satisfaction, but 
that they were entirely willing to meet at Amboy, pro- 
vided the fact was not made a precedent.' 

When a newly-chosen house first met, the members 
immediately waited upon the governor, and took the re- 
quired oaths or affirmations in his presence. They then 
withdrew and elected a speaker. The choice of this offi- 
cer was a matter of much importance, because it deter- 
mined which party was in control of the house, and 
because the speaker was, of course, designated as its 
spokesman, and in a sense its leader. The house then 
waited upon his excellency and presented the speaker for 
his approval, which was always given. Cornbury ac- 

'^ New Jei'sey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 35; vol. iv, pp. 264, 272f 

''-Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 341. 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 13. 1727. 



338 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

cepted Jennings and Gordon, whom he detested, and 
Hunter approved of Coxe. After the speaker had re- 
quested the "usual privileges" for the house, and these 
had been granted, the governor delivered his formal 
opening speech to the assembled houses. The repre- 
sentatives then withdrew to their own chamber, and the 
actual business of the session commenced.' 

Besides the speaker, the assembly of the union period 
had regularly two other officers, who were not, however, 
members of the house. These were the clerk and the 
sergeant-at-arms.'' They were named by the governor 
upon the request of the house. Cornbury named clerks 
who were not acceptable to the house: first, William 
Anderson, a thorough tool, and later Capt. John Pin- 
horne, son of the second judge. Later governors, how- 
ever, appointed persons acceptable to the majority. 
Because of the well-known character of Anderson, the 
third assembly, ever memorable for its brave stand 
against tyranny, took the position that when it was act- 
ing in committee of the whole it might exclude the 
regular clerk of the house and name one of its members 
clerk. The result, as we shall see later, was a struggle 
with the governor, which resulted not only in the victory 
of the house on the issue involved, but also in the dis- 
missal of Anderson. 3 After the overthrow of Cornbury 
and his clique, however, the question as to the right of 
the house to name its own clerk when in committee 
ceased to have importance. 

^ Assembly Journal, passim. The proceedure of the sixth assembly 
at its first session may be taken as typical, Assem,bly Journal, Dec. 6 
and 7, 1710. 

-The third assembly was the first to apply for a sergeant; Assembly 
Journal, April 19, 1707. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 227; Assem.bly Journal, April I9^ 
1707. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 33Q 

When the house assembled in its own chamber, after 
listening to his excellency's speech, it regularly went into 
committee of the whole to determine what action should 
be taken, and after consideration resolutions were voted. 
After peace had been established by Lovelace and Hun- 
ter between the executive department and the assembly, 
the resolution was nearly always a statement of the 
intention of the house to vote a certain sum for the 
support of the government for a stated number of years. 
Sometimes the house also announced that it would 
prepare other necessary measures. Under Cornbury, 
however, the third assembly had dared to maintain that 
it would vote no money until the grievances of the prov- 
ince were investigated and redressed.' After having thus 
in a way mapped out the work of the session, the house 
next proceeded to draw up an address in reply to the 
governor's speech. Except when conflicts were actually 
raging between the governor and the assembly, these 
addresses of the house were usually brief and general in 
character, merely expressing pleasure on meeting the 
governor and the desire of the assembly to serve king 
and country. New governors were congratulated upon 
their arrival. But, unlike the council, the house always 
avoided servility, although a humbleness of tone some- 
times appears which hardly accords with modern notions 
of the importance of the representatives of the people.' 
After the address had been adopted, the house waited 
upon the governor, and it was read by the speaker. 

Regular routine work was then begun by the intro- 
duction and discussion of bills. Sometimes these were 

'^ Assembly Journal, Apr. 8, 1707; Oct. 2-j , 1707. 

"''The most interesting address is that to Montgomerie upon his first 
meeting with the assembly; Assembly Journal, Dec. 19, 1728. 



340 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

brought in by private members, upon permission given 
by the house,' but the nature of more important meas- 
ures was decided upon in committees of the whole, and 
special committees were named to prepare them. All 
bills received three readings, as at present. Special 
committees were regularly employed for the more 
minute study of all important bills and miCasures, but 
really vital measures, like those for the support of the 
government, were generally elaborated in committee of 
the whole. The "tyranny" of standing committees was, 
of course, unknown. Upon the amendment of bills by 
the council and the rejection of the amendments by the 
house, conferences were usually held at the request of 
one house or the other. Conference committees were 
named just as at present, and conferences took place 
which often lasted several days. But while the house 
not infrequently consented to the council amendments, 
upon matters of principle, as will be shown in the chapter 
on the struggles between the departments, the repre- 
sentatives regularly prevailed, because the house nearly 
always showed its determination to defeat all legislation 
rather than yield; while the council, composed of cfifice- 
holders as it was, was usually unv\?illing to assume a 
similar responsibility. 

Perhaps the most direct victory won by the house 
over the council was in the matter of its own title. 
When Ingoldsby requested legislation from the fourth 
assembly, providing support for the Canada expedition 
of Nicholson and Vetch, the house drew up the acts in 
the style of governor, council and general assembly, thus 
appropriating the latter title. This was not an absolutely 

'"Freak Bills" were, not unknown; Assembly Jcurnal, March 22, 
1 721-2. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 341 

new claim, as the question had come up during the pro- 
prietary period in East Jersey, but the proprietary 
assembly had based itself upon the phraseology of the 
original " Concessions " of Berkeley and Carteret. The 
council now strenuously objected to the pretentions of 
the house, because it was stated, in the governor's com- 
missions and instructions, that governor, council and 
representatives together constituted the general assem- 
bly, and because that style had pre\iously been followed 
in legislation." The house replied by citing the practice 
in New York.^ That the bills might be carried the 
council was forced to yield. ^ The controversy, of course, 
immediately reappeared during the session of the fifth 
assembly, ^ which, though favorably inclined to the 
lieutenant-governor, was strong for its rights as a body. 
The representatives proudly declared that the title of 
general assembly was the meanest one which could be 
given to their house, ^ and by their determination again 
forced the council to give way. By the precedent thus 
gained, the representatives of the Jerseys became ofifi- 
cially known as the " General Assembly," and the title is 
still used. 

During the work of the session the house communi- 
cated frequently with the governor, sometimes by means 
of formal addresses, but more usually by sending com- 
mittees, with requests that he take certain action or give 
important information. All the governors made a great 
show of willingness to coniply with reasonable wishes of 
the house, though Cornbury on several occasions refused 
requests on various pretexts.^ His real willingness to 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 376. * Ibid., vol. xiii, p, 378. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 380. ^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 406. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 409, 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 17, 1705; May 14 and Oct. 28, 1707. 



342 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY- 

take the house fully into his confidence was one of the 
strongest points of Hunter, who not only gave the house 
certain of his instructions, but also submitted the ac- 
counts of expenditures as a guide to the members in 
preparing the bills for support of the government.' 

Throughout the work of the sessions there are num- 
erous indications that much of importance went on out- 
side of the chambers of the houses. The bribing of 
Cornbury, by both parties in turn, to influence his atti- 
tude toward the assembly, is a case in point. But more 
creditable examples are to be found in the cases of 
Hunter and Burnet, who, by holding friendly conferences 
with the members of the house, as well as by their gen- 
eral influence and control over the affairs of the province, 
seem to have directed to a large degree what went on in 
the assembly. The best illustration of this is perhaps 
the way in which, during the first session of the ninth 
assembly, Burnet persuaded John Kinsey, Jr., to dis- 
continue his agitation for a separation from New York — 
the matter which later caused trouble for the inexperienced 
Montgomerie.^ There also seems to have been at times 
no little of what we now call lobbying. The nearly suc- 
cessful effort of George Willocks, an outsider, to control 
the seventh assembly against Burnet, presumably to 
further his own business interests, is a striking example.' 

The discussion of the character of the legislation of 
the general assembly hardly belongs in this section. Of 
the subjects regularly considered by the house, however, 
the most important was the raising of taxes for support 
of the government. The control of this subject lay 

^Assembly Journal, Dec. 19 and 23, 1710. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 262. 
^ Ibid., vol. V, pp. 33, 59. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 343 

almost exclusively with the house, as it was never seri- 
ously denied that money bills should there originate, 
and the house always successfully maintained its claim 
that, though the council might reject money bills, it 
could not amend them.' After it had decided in com- 
mittee of the whole the total amount to be raised for 
support, the house, still in committee, fixed by resolu- 
tion the salaries of the governor and of all the other 
ofificers, as well as the sums to be allowed them for 
traveling and other expenses. It then worked out the 
manner of laying and apportioning the taxes by which 
these sums were to be raised. Though the house some- 
times respected the wishes of the governor in its work, 
in general it kept the whole field of taxation and the 
payment of salaries very jealously under its control. 
When we consider that it was in most cases necessary 
for the governor and council to accept any arrangement 
which the. assembly saw fit to make, the tremendous 
power of the latter body becomes apparent. The work 
of preparing the act for support was usually rather pro- 
longed. But as the same general principles of appor- 
tioning salaries and raising taxes were followed from 
session to session, we must conclude that the chief 
reason for the delay was the desire of the house to be 
assured that other measures which it regarded as neces- 
sary should be approved by the council before it gave 
away the key of power. When the house had at length 
prepared the act of support, it usually rose in a body 
and, led by its speaker, tended to the governor the gift 
of the people. This presentation of the support was 
usually, though not always, the signal for the close of 
the session." 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 194. 
^Assembly Journal, passim. 



344 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

In close connection with its control over the budget, 
the house developed certain other powers which were not 
strictly legislative. The governor's instructions gave the 
house the right to examine the accounts of all moneys 
expended under its own acts/ though it was certainly 
contemplated by the home government that the receiver- 
general should be responsible primarily to the governor 
and the treasury board in England. But from the begin- 
ning the general assembly, like all bodies of colonial re- 
presentatives, showed its desire to hold the receiver- 
general responsible strictly to itself. In this purpose, as 
we shall see, it did not at once succeed, for, though 
Cornbury did unwillingly submit Peter Fauconnier's 
accounts, he refused the request of the house that his 
vouchers also be examined, thus defeating the purpose 
of the examination.'' But, with the accession of Hunter, 
the right of the assembly to conduct a complete auditing 
of the accounts was established. He not only readily 
submitted the full accounts of the previous administra- 
tions,3 but allowed the house to insist upon the attend- 
ance of the "treasurers," even to the extent of having 
the sergeant-at-arms bring Dr. Roberts, the treasurer 
of the western division, before the assembly to submit 
his accounts."* The actual work in auditing was done in 
most of the assemblies by the committee of the whole 
acting in cooperation with a special committee of the 
council, and often occupied several weeks. Nor did the 
house stop with a mere examination. It did not hesitate 
to condemn treasurers or other ofBcers guilty of dis- 
honesty or negligence, as the cases of Fauconnier^ and 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. ii, p. 515. 

^ Assembly Journal, May 13 and 14, 1707. 

'Ibid., Jan. 25. 1710-11. ^ Ibid., Jan. i, 1716-17. 

'Ibid., March 23, 1708; Jan. 25, 1710-11; March 27, 1719. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 3^- 

Thomas Gordon show. In such instances the assembly 
regularly addressed the governor to have the delinquents 
prosecuted, and in both cases the chief executive did as 
requested.' Indeed, Hunter, in the case of Gordon, 
formally questioned the representatives as to what action 
he should take.^ Because of the strict control instituted 
by the house, the later treasurers give little cause of 
complaint. 

The house not only audited accounts and secured the 
punishment of delinquents, but it also had much to do 
with the appointment of financial officers. Upon the re- 
quest of the house, Lovelace named Miles Forster as 
receiver-general in place of Fauconnier, Cornbury's tool, 
and the house accepted him as " treasurer." ^ From that 
time on, although the house never gained the formal 
right to elect a treasurer, the governors always selected 
persons highly acceptable to the house. Hunter, upon 
the request of the house, adopted the practice of naming 
two treasurers, one for each division.'* 

Closely connected with this control of the treasury was 
the practice of the house after the adoption of the system 
of bills of credit. The bills of credit were, of course, 
issued under the authority of provincial statutes, which 
named commissioners to sign and otherwise handle the 
bills. The issue of the bills soon led to the establish- 
ment of the loan offices, which were also in the hands of 
commissioners named by the legislature. ^ At every 

^Minutes of the Supretne Court (1704-1715), p. 121; (Perth Amboy, 
1714-1731). P- 131- 

^ Assembly Journal, March 2"], 1719. 

^Assembly Journal, March 24, 1708. 

^ Ibid., Feb. 4, 1718-ig. Jeremiah Basse was named for West Jersey, 
and William Eires for East Jersey. 

'The first loan office act was passed in 1723 under Burnet. 



346 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



regular session after the institution of these new features 
of provincial finance, committees were named to join 
those of the council in investigating the conduct of 
the commissioners, and to destroy in proper form the 
expired bills of credit. We shall consider elsewhere 
the development of this new form of colonial cur- 
rency, and shall then study the nature of the legislative 
control in its more special features. Suf^ce it to point 
out here that during the later part of the union period 
this field always occupied considerable attention during 
assemblies.' 

But, important as its financial duties were, there was 
another field outside of the strictly legislative which also 
demanded much care, and which was at times even more 
troublesome to the representatives. It was, of course, 
their function to investigate and make known the griev- 
ances of the province, and to address the governor or, if 
need be, the home authorities for redress. The first and 
greatest work accomplished by the assembly in this 
direction was during the first meeting of the third as- 
sembly in 1707, when, led by Morris and Jennings, the 
house determined to prepare a remonstrance upon the 
condition of the province,'' and, in spite of the governor's 
warnings,^ conducted for two weeks an investigation of 
Cornbury's administration, and specially of the circum- 
stances relating to the raising of the " Blind Tax " to 
bribe the governor. During this investigation it as- 
sumed the right to summon witnesses,-* and to enforce 
their attendance by causing their arrest by the sergeant- 
at-arms.5 It even compelled the sherifif of Burlington, 

^Assembly Journal, passim. 

"^ Ibid., Apr. 8, 1707. '^ Ibid., Apr. 9, 1707. 

* Ibid., Apr. 21, 1707. ^ Ibid., Apr. 26 and 29, 1707. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 347 

Hugh Haddy, a supporter of Cornbury, to release John 
Langstaff, who had been summoned as a witness, but 
against whom charges had baen made, presumably to 
prevent his attendance on the house.' The result of the 
investigation was the preparation of a petition to the 
queen, ^ of a letter to Robert Harley, secretary of state, 
and of the celebrated remonstrance of 1707,'' which the 
speaker, Samuel Jennings, won fame by reading to the 
indignant governor in person.* 

The second and third sessions of the third assembly, 
cut short as they were by the power of the governor, 
were also occupied entirely with protesting against 
Cornbury's misrule. ^ During the second session, the 
answer of the house to Cornbury's reply to their re- 
monstrance was drawn and entered upon the journal,^ 
while in the session beginning May, 1708, the reply of 
the house to the governor's opening speech was virtually 
another remonstrance.^ 

The fourth assembly, which met under Lovelace, had 
naturally no call to remonstrate with the governor. 
Upon obtaining from him, however, a copy of the ad- 
dress sent to the Crown by Ingoldsby and the council 
during the recent administration, the assembly regarded 
it as necessary to prepare and send home a counter 
address denying the charges of Cornbury's clique, and 
begging the queen not to be misled.^ Although the 
conflict between the governor and the assembly was 

^ Assembly Joiir7ial, Apr. 30, May i, 1707. 

"' New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, p. 171. ^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 173. 

^ Smith, N^ew Jersey, p. 295. 

^Assembly Journal, Oct. ly, 1707. 

^Ibid., Oct. 29, 1707; New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 242. 

'^Assembly Journal, May 12, 1707. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 385. 



348 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



renewed under Ingoldsby, the peculiar circumstances of 
his administration brought it about that no great amount 
of time was spent by the assembly in remonstrances or 
addresses. 

But under Hunter the assembly did important work in 
this field on several occasions. Hunter's first house pre- 
pared and presented to the governor elaborate charges 
against Secretary Basse' and William Hall, the county 
judge of Salem County,^ as well as a memorial upon the 
recent perversions of justice,^ which were the result of a 
lengthy investigation. While examining the misconduct 
of Hall, the house caused the sheriff of Salem County to 
be brought before it under arrest by its sergeant-at-arms,+ 
and also examined Capt. William Dare, sheriff of Corn- 
bury's time.^ The overthrow of the adherents of Corn- 
bury in the council, however, soon rendered such steps 
unnecessary. It was not until the seventh assembly, 
which met in April, 1716, and in which Col. Coxe and 
his followers had a majority, that the house again drew 
up a vigorous remonstrance. Since Hunter had, in 
accordance with his instructions, but contrary to the 
unconfirmed act of 1709, called the session at Amboy 
instead of Burlington, the assembly drew up an address 
demanding that they be adjourned to the West Jersey 
town.^ When the governor refused to do this, the house 
turned to other grievances, deciding, among other 
things, to draw an address against Hunter's action in 
dissolving the recently elected assembly before it had 
met.^ Such was the show of hostility that on April 28th 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 71. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 79. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 87. 

^ Assembly Journal , Jan. 20, 1710-11. "Ibid., Jan. 4, 1710-11. 

'^Ibid., Apr. 7, 1716. ''Ibid., Apr. 26, 1716. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 349 

Hunter prorogued the assembly until May 7th.- This 
step proved a happy expedient for the chief executive, 
since Coxe and his supporters endeavored to checkmate 
him by staying away from the sessions when the house 
reassembled. The supporters of Hunter were thus 
enabled to control the house,' and the prompt expulsion 
of Coxe and his chief adherents rendered this control 
permanent. The harmony between the governor and 
the house resulted, as usual, in the latter body applying 
itself diligently to routine work in the field of legislation. 

Not until the accession of Burnet did the assembly 
again endeavor to bring forward important grievances. 
As is shown elsewhere, the unwillingness of the new 
governor to arrive at an understanding with the clique of 
proprietors led by Willocks and Johnstone resulted in a 
rather violent clash between him and the seventh assem- 
bly, which he had decided to continue in existence, 
although it had been chosen under Hunter.^ With the 
precise points of conflict, which related chiefly to tech- 
nical questions of privilege, we need not concern our- 
selves here. Suffice it to say that the assembly spent 
much of its time in drawing up a set of resolutions* and 
in preparing two rather lengthy addresses, maintaining 
its contentions, and by implication, at any rate criticizing 
Burnet. 5 There seems little doubt that in the main the 
leaders of the assembly were acting from political rather 
than patriotic motives, though several of their conten- 
tions seem highly proper from the modern democratic 
point of view. 

During the remainder of Burnet's administration the 

^ Assembly Journal, Apr. 28, 1716. '^ Ibid., May 21, 1716. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 10, 56. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 15Q. ^Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 176. 185. 



350 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERZ'EY 



assembly found little occasion for remonstrances or 
addresses except those of a formal nature. We have 
already seen, however, how during the last legislative 
session of Burnet's time, the desire long felt by the 
province to have a separate governor was brought 
forward as an issue by the restless and energetic John 
Kinsey, Jr. It has also been shown elsewhere how the 
effort to bring this subject to the attention of the home 
authorities was temporarily checked by Burnet, ' but 
how, under his successor, Montgomerie, the assembly, 
after a serious disagreement with the governor, at length 
succeeded in formulating and forwarding an address to 
the Crown, praying for complete separation from New 
York.^ With this final victory the assembly may be said 
to have concluded its work during the union period, as 
mouth-piece for expressing formally the grievances and 
desires of the people of the Jerseys. 

It seems almost needless to point out that though, 
after the accession of Hunter, the province was in little 
danger of tyranny, the function of the assembly, just de- 
scribed, was nevertheless one of the most vital import- 
ance. The firmness of the house in publicly exposing 
the corruption of Cornbury in 1707 certainly contributed 
materially to his overthrow, and the knowledge that the 
assembly was only too eager to take up any case of cor- 
ruption or maladministration miust have acted powerfully 
to prevent such abuses. ^ As representing in this way 
the demands of the inhabitants of the colony, the history 
of the assembly of New Jersey is highly creditable. 

In sketching the work of the assembly in securing the 
redress of grievances we have, of course, considered only 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 355; vol. v, p. 262. 
''Ibid., vol. V, p. 270. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 262. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 



351 



matters of prime importance. During the sessions num- 
erous addresses were prepared to the governors, asking 
for more specific clianges. Thus the governors were 
regularly asked to name clerks, sergeants and door- 
keepers for the assembly. Sometimes they were re- 
quested simply to give information or to allow the rep- 
resentatives a sight of certain of their instructions.' 
Hunter, as we have seen, was requested to name two 
treasurers instead of one,' while Burnet received an 
address requesting that he appoint a chief justice resi- 
dent in the province.^ Some of these special addresses, 
like those last mentioned, were of considerable import- 
ance. All the executives made a brave show of comply- 
ing with such wishes when formally expressed by the 
"lower house," and the wise ones, like Hunter and 
Burnet, did so in fact. 

Because of its power in this regard the house was con- 
tinually receiving petitions of all kinds. These, however, 
generally demanded legislation of some sort. Several 
asked for the naturalization of persons of foreign birth ; 
others for changes in county lines. In 1722 the new 
county of Hunterdon asked representation in the assem- 
bly.^ The most important were the petitions which 
complained of grievances, like those of Peter Blacksfield, 
under Ingoldsby and Hunter.' It is not possible here to 
attempt any catalogue of such petitions, especially as the 
more important are considered in the chapter on conflicts 
between the departments of government. But it must 
be noted, in considering the duties of the assembly, that 
nearly every session brought such prayers, and that they 
always received at least formal consideration. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 3. 1710-11. -Ibid., Feb. 4, 1718-19. 

^ Ibid., Nov. 23, 1723. ^ Ibid., Apr. 4, 1722. 

^ Ibid., June 28, 1709 and Dec. 15, 1710. 



352 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



Among the most important powers of the assembly 
were those of determining the qualifications of its own 
members, of maintaining discipline over them, and of 
expelling them if necessary. Questions relating to these 
matters at times received much care and attention, and 
in several cases, where the parties were nearly balanced, 
had important results. Even the most hasty considera- 
tion of the work of the assembly in exercising these 
powers, however, shows plainly two facts : first, that in 
the choosing of representatives there was often much 
carelessness and irregularity, if not something worse; 
and second, that the assembly in judging such questions 
was nearly always guided by party feeling. It is never- 
theless also true that, after the settling of the disputes 
growing out of the misconduct of Cornbury, there is 
much less to which a modern student can lake exception.' 

We shall consider first the more important questions 
of disputed election and of the determiination of qualifi- 
cations. It will.be remembered that, at the choice of the 
first assembly, the members for East and West Jersey 
respectively were chosen, not by districts, but at large, ^ 
the poll being held supposedly at some central point in 
each division. The struggle in East Jersey between the 
proprietary and anti-proprietary parties, which had only 
recently resulted in the violence of " the revolution," was, 
of course, bitter, while the control of the house was of 
vital importance. Thomas Gordon, the well-known pro- 
prietor, was. however, sheriff of Middlesex, and to him 
as high sheriff of East Jersey the writs for the election 
were directed. The majority of the members returned 
were of the "proprietary interest."' 

'Assembly Journal, passhn. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 510; vol. iii, pp. 29, 55. 

" fhid., vol. iii, pp. 13, 15, 276. 



THE GES'ERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 



353 



No sooner was the assembly organized, however, than 
a petition was received from John Royse, John Bowne, 
Richard Salter, Anthony Woodward and WilHam Law- 
rence, all prominent members of the anti-proprietary 
faction, complaining of the undue election of five East 
Jersey members, including Col. Richard Townley, John 
Harrison and Jedidiah Allen.' A copy was at once given 
to Gordon, and he was given time to answer. On 
November 13 Salter attended and prayed that he with 
the others might have leave to call as many witnesses as 
they should need. This request the house granted, but 
cautiously stipulated that they were not to exceed 
twenty,' and when, three days later, Capt. John Bowne 
asked that summons be granted for three evidences 
against Gordon who were unwilling to appear, the house 
would take no action. ^ On the afternoon of the same 
day the Gordon case was taken up. Gordon delivered 
his answer, and his witnesses were sworn.'* On the 17th 
the case was contimied. On question as to whether 
Gordon's evidences be heard by the assembly as a house 
or in committee of the whole, it was decided that the 
members would act as a house. The witnesses were 
then examined. 5 On the next day it was voted that the 
evidences produced by Gordon were sufBcient, and that 
no further evidence be allowed, and then, upon motion 
of Gordon himself, the representatives voted that the 
petition be dismissed, and that the members returned 
were duly elected.^ 

There can be little doubt that, whether Gordon was 
technically guilty of a false return or not, the members 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 12, 1703. ^/did., Nov. 13, 1703. 

^Ibid., Nov. 16, 1703. ^ Ibid., Nov. 16, 1703. 

"Ibid., Nov. 17, 1703. '^Ibid., Nov. 18, 1703. 



354 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



chosen did not fairly represent the people of East Jersey. 
Although the requirement of the ownership of one hun- 
dred acres of land for the suffrage shut out many of the 
adherents of the anti-proprietary party, a study of the 
patents and surveys of East Jersey indicates that a 
sufficient number of persons of New England origin, 
and identified with the opposition to the proprietors, 
must have been qualified to constitute a majority." 
Indeed, that such was the case was specifically stated by 
Col. Quary, who, though bitterly against the proprietors, 
was later admitted by Governor Hunter himself to be 
both efficient and honest." Quary assured the lords of 
trade that the proprietors could bring to the polling- 
place only forty electors, while the other party had 
between three and four hundred, and could easily have 
brought more. The result, according to him, was accom- 
plished by Gordon through the trick of adjourning the 
poll, so as to force "the country" to delay "in a place 
without all accomodations."^ That this statement of the 
case was essentially correct is shown by the letter of 
Lewis Morris to the secretary of state of February, 
1707-8, an interesting and able document transmitted 
with the results of the great investigation of the third 
assembly into Cornbury's maladministration. The whole 
letter is a denunciation of Cornbury and his allies, but, 
in speaking of the election of 1703, Morris frankly admits 
that "the Basse faction" were a majority in East Jersey, 
but that they lost the election through "an artifice of 
their opponents."* That the consideiation of the dispute 

'The anti-proprietary party usually controlled Monmouth, Essex and 
Bergen. 
'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 50, 61. 
'^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 15. * Ibid., vol. iii, p. 276. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 



355 



by the assembly was a farce, the house journal clearly 
shows, and the matter is more ridiculous when we 
remember that Gordon himself was the speaker of the 
assembly. 

We have dwelt upon the circumstances of this case 
because it was important in itself, since it involved the 
control of the house. But fairness also requires that it 
be stated that certain members, at any rate, of the pro- 
prietary party, by their odious juggling with this election, 
and by the bribe paid by them to Cornbury,' actually 
initiated that policy of dishonesty and lack of scruple in 
public affairs which their opponents so readily took up. 
The conduct of Gordon does not justify the action of 
Salter and Bovvne in raising "the Blind Tax." but it 
helps to explain it. Doubtless we should not expect a 
higher political morality in the Jerseys than in England 
and in neighboring colonies, but it must ever be a source 
of regret to all true Jerseynien that our colonial annals 
are fouled by such transactions. 

Immediately after the opening of the first session of 
the second assembly, in November, 1704, a petition was 
received from five Quakers of Burlington, among whom 
were Hugg and Gardiner, complaining that an untrue 
return had been made by William Fisher, sheriff of 
Burlington, one of Cornbury's creatures.^ As, owing to 
the nefarious exclusion of the "three members," the 
house had at this time an anti-proprietary majority, it 
was hardly to be expected that justice would be done. 
Consideration of the petition was postponed from time 
to time. Finally, on December 5th, both the petitioners 
and Fisher were heard, but no decision was made. On 

^ Nfw Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 207. 
"^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 24, 1704. 



3^6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the next day, however, the house voted that the peti- 
tion was " frivilous," and that those returned had a 
right to sit.' 

The third assembly, rendered so illustrious by its pro- 
test against Cornbury, curiously enough had no case of 
disputed election. The fifth assembly, meeting in 1709 
under Ingoldsby, was obliged to consider several cases, 
however, and seems, in this regard as in several others, 
to have shown less party animosity than the other earlier 
assemblies. Peter Sonmans presented a petition against 
the election in Perth Amboy, and was given a hearing. 
He was answered by Gordon, and the house decided for 
the proprietary candidate." A double return had been 
made from Burlington Town,^ and in a hearing on De- 
cember 3, 1709, Coxe, Wheeler, Gardiner and others 
testified.* After full consideration, the assembly voted 
that there had been irregularities on both sides, and 
ordered a new election.'* Ingoldsby, after considering 
the request for a new writ and consulting the council, 
sent a message to the house stating that, as the sheriff 
of Burlington was a county officer he was not a proper 
person to receive the writ. Ingoldsby therefore directed 
the writ to the town constable.^ But when the return 
was again made, a protest against it was received from 
the Quakers Deacon and Burg.'' The house, however, 
rejected this and the choice stood. Protest was also 
received against a return from Somerset, but this, too, 
"was rejected.^ 

The meeting of Hunter's first assembly — the sixth — in 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 6, 1704. '^ Ibid., Dec. 3, 1709. 

^Ibid., Dec. i, 1709. ^ Ibid., Dec. 3, 1709. 

^ Ibid., Dec. 6, 1709. '^ Ibid., Dec. 13 and 14, 1709. 

''Ibid., Dec. 14, 1709. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 3^7 

1710, brought numerous petitions, most of which were 
manifestly due to political motives. After Thomas 
Gordon had sent a petition urging that Gershom Mott, 
of Monmouth, well known as an active opponent of the 
proprietors, was not properly qualified,' the latter re- 
taliated by presenting petitions against the elections in 
Perth Amboy and in Middlesex.' Apparently none of 
these protests was regarded seriously, as the house 
proceeded to business, and later voted that the elections 
were fair, and that Mr. Mott should serve." A more im- 
portant matter came up regarding the election in Bur- 
lington Town. Protests were received from divers of 
the inhabitants, and they were immediately considered 
in committee.' It was held that all freeholders in Bur- 
lington and all other towns, though not residing therein, 
had a right to vote. But all who were supported by 
charity or who, by reason of poverty, did not pay taxes 
were declared incapable. The house, therefore, made 
application to Hunter for a new writ, which was forth- 
with issued.' Although in the third session of 1713 
an investigation was made into the proper form of 
writs and returns made thereon, there were no further 
disputes regarding proper elections until the meeting of 
the seventh assembly. 

The seventh assembly, meeting in April, 1716, was 
notable because of the struggle between Col. Coxe, its 
first speaker, and the governor. But curiously enough, 
there were no heated election contests. At the begin- 
ning it appeared that Coxe had been chosen in English 
fashion for both Gloucester and Salem Town. He de- 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 8, 1710. 'Ibid., Dec. 16, 1710. 

''Ibid., Dec. q, 1710; A'ew Jtrsey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 428. Robert 
Wheeler and Isaac Decowe were returned. 



358 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

clared to serve for Gloucester, and a new election was 
ordered in Salem.' A few days later, however, the house 
ordered William Harrison, sheriff of Gloucester, to ap- 
pear and answer charges relating to the election of 
representatives.^ Harrison appeared and charges were 
delivered against him in writing by Coxe.^ Harrison, 
after time had been given, replied. But, upon consider- 
ation, the house voted that the action of the sheriff in 
adjourning the poll, on Feb. loth, from "the field near 
John Kay's to the house of William Cooper, several 
miles distant," without consent of the candidates, was 
contrary to law and the right of the subject. It was 
therefore ordered that Harrison be reprimanded by the 
speaker, and that a bill be brought in to regulate the 
elections.'' But before this could be done Hunter pro- 
rogued the hostile house, and when it met again, on 
May 7th, the absence of Coxe and his party gave its 
control to the supporters of the governor, led by John 
Kinsey. The expulsion of the protesting members led 
to the holding of new elections in several of the coun- 
ties. But, though some difficulty was caused by the 
returning of ineligible persons, the house was not called 
upon to decide any election disputes. 

With the general subsidence of political heats under 
the respectable rule of Burnet, we find few cases of dis- 
puted elections. In the last session of the eighth as- 
sembly, however, held in 1725, there was a bitterly con- 
tested poll in Burlington and Hunterdon Counties between 
Mahlon Stacy, representing the Quaker interest, and 
Col. Daniel Coxe, who was seeking to reenter the public 
life of the province. ^ The case seems to have attracted 

^ Assembly Joiirnal, Apr. 16, 1716. '^Ibid., Apr. 5, 1716. 

^ Ibid., Apr. 26, 1716. *Ibid., Apr. 28, 1716. 

^ Ibid., July 22 and 26, 1725. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 



359 



considerable attention. Since the return of the writ was 
found to be improper, Charles Weston, sheriff of Burling- 
ton, was arrested and brought before the house to explain 
why he had made it. The charge was brought against 
him that he had assumed authority belonging to the 
house. But the sheriff humbly asked pardon, explaining 
that he had acted only through ignorance. He was dis- 
missed with a severe reprimand.' Meanwhile Coxe had 
been given an opportunity to present his reasons why 
Stacy should not sit." On July 28 and 29, 1725, both 
Coxe and Stacy were heard, and presented their evi- 
dences and affidavits. The house, after debate, at length 
decided that the election be not declared void, and that 
Stacy should have the seat.^ Whether the decision was 
due to political motives or not, it is now impossible to 
say, though it seems not unlikely that it was. Still, unlike 
the cases in the stirring times of Cornbury, both parties 
were undoubtedly given a fair hearing. This case was 
the direct cause of the passage of the bill for the better 
regulation of elections, described in an earlier chapter.* 

We find no further election decisions of importance 
during the union period. 

The work of the assembly in determining the qualifi- 
cations of its members follows closely the lines of its 
actions regarding elections, and the general conclusions 
as to motives must be the same. Among the members 
returned to the first assembly was the well-known Richard 
Hartshorne, of Monmouth, an anti-proprietary leader. 
Gordon, the speaker, and John Reid at once protested 

^Assembly Journal, Aug. 10, 13, 1725. Weston had favored Coxe 
unduly in the taking of the poll. 
^Ibid., July 26, 1725. -Ibid., July 29, 1725. 

*■ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 105. 



36o 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



that Hartshorne was not qualified/ The house there- 
fore sent to know if Cornbury in council was pleased to 
swear or attest the evidences to appear before the house, 
or whether he would appoint some of the council to do 
so. His excellency, in reply, asked that Hartshorne 
might have leave to attend him. To this dangerous 
request the house acceded, but sent a com.mittee, in- 
cluding Gordon and Reid, to accompany him."* The 
committee, on its return, reported that the governor 
had ordered Hartshorne to qualify himself as the law 
directed. Thereupon the house ordered Hartshorne to 
withdraw, and he did so.^ Thus at the very beginning 
the proprietary clique disposed of a troublesome op- 
ponent. 

The second assembly was made notable by the exclu- 
sion of the three West Jersey members, Thomas Lam- 
bert, Thomas Gardiner and Joshua Wright, upon the 
ground that they did not own the requisite amount of 
property.^ It was, of course, the boldest sort of a polit- 
ical scheme on the part of Cornbury and his new allies, 
the anti- proprietary party. The exclusion of the three 
Friends after the first session was, however, not the work 
of the assembly, but of the governor and council. Corn- 
bury, in refusing to admit the three members to attest, 
took the ground that he also had a right to judge of the 
qualifications of representatives.^ Because this claim led 
to a fierce struggle between the governor and the house, 
this matter will be considered at length in the chapter on 

^ Assembly Jottrnal, Nov. i6, 1703. '■Ibid., Nov. 16, 1703. 

^Ibici., Nov. 17, 1703. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 86 et seq. The hearing on their 
case was put off by the assembly on various pretexts until the session 
was at an end. 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 17, 1705. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 361 

the conflicts of departments. Suffice it to say here that 
even the anti-proprietary assembly would not support 
Cornbury in his effort to exclude the three Quakers in- 
definitely,' that the three members obtained their seats at 
the second session,^ and that Cornbury was reproved by 
the home authorities for his conduct. ^ 

Possibly because of the recollection of Cornbury's 
tyrannical interference, the question of proper qualifica- 
tion does not seem to have been raised again until Hun- 
ter's time. When the sixth assembly met in 1710, 
Thomas Gordon sent a petition urging that Gershom 
Mott of Monmouth was not qualified, and Dr. Johnstone 
sent another against Major Sandford and Mr. Van Bus- 
kirk, of Bergen. ■♦ Upon investigation by the house, the 
persons attacked were, however, declared qualified. ^ 

During the early part of the seventh assembly, when 
Coxe was speaker, more interesting cases arose. On 
April 24, 1 716, the house requested Hunter to qualify 
William Clews, member from Salem County. But when 
he came before the governor. Clews declared that he had 
never taken an oath. Thereupon Hunter, who under- 
stood that Clews was neither a Quaker nor a "reputed 
Quaker," refused to qualify him, taking the position that 
the privilege of affirmation was granted to the Friends 
alone. The house, however, promptly sent a committee 
to inform Hunter that Clews was "a reputed Quaker." 
The governor then qualified him by affirmation.'' 

Meanwhile objection had been raised to the qualifica- 
tions of Thomas Farmar, of Amboy, a staunch follower 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 18, 1705. ^ Ibid., Oct. 26, 1705. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 127. 

* Assembly Journal, Dec. 8, 1710. 'Ibid., Dec. 16, 1710. 

^ Ibid., Apr. 25, 1716. 



362 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

of the governor.' Action was for a time postponed, but 
on April 28 the matter was taken up. On a motion that 
Farmar withdraw while his qualifications were discussed, 
the vote was a tie. Farmar himself offered his vote, but 
it was voted that this should not be allowed. When the 
question was again put, it was carried that Farmar with- 
draw. He was given till the next Monday to prove his 
right to sit,^ but there is no doubt that he was marked 
by the majority for sacrifice because of his political posi- 
tion. But before he could be driven out, the proroga- 
tion by Hunter and the resulting expulsion of Coxe and 
his followers changed the complexion of the house. 
With Kinsey as speaker, it was promptly voted that 
Farmar was qualified. ^ 

Another example of disqualification occurred during 
the stormy meeting between Burnet and the seventh as- 
sembly in 1 72 1. At this session, of which we have only 
an imperfect record, Burnet believed that a West Jersey 
member was declared lacking in the required qualifica- 
tions because he was willing to support the governor. 
When new members were chosen from Middlesex and 
Salem Town, the house requested Burnet to send the 
clerk of the Crown with the rolls of oaths to qualify 
them before the house."* This request led to a heated 
controversy, since the governor took the stand that new 
members must be sworn before him in person. ^ He ad- 
mitted that in one or two cases the governor had dis- 
pensed with the ceremony, but resolutel}^ maintained 

^ Assembly Journal, Apr. 10. 1716. '^Ibid., Apr. 28, 1716. 

^ Ibid., May 21, 1716. 

^ N(w Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 154. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 155. During the controversy Burnet like Hunter 
maintained that acts not formerly confirmed by the Crown might be 
be superseded by later royal instructions. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 



363 



that the power must be always his to require it/ In 
spite of the failure of the session, Burnet did not give 
way on this point. 

We find no other important case of disqualification 
during the union period except that in 1733 the tenth 
assembly, under Cosby, ordered a new election in Somer- 
set County to provide a member in place of Tsaac Van 
Zant, who had accepted the office of sheriff, and thu:; 
disqualified himself under the recent act barring office- 
holders from being representatives. =" 

Of more interest is the action of the assembly in main- 
taining discipline and in using the power of expulsion. 
The most common evil with which the house had to deal 
was absence. At almost every session numerous of the 
members duly chosen were late in arriving, and in sev- 
eral instances they absented themselves for long periods. 
With a few notable exceptions, these absences were not 
due to political reasons, but were caused sometimes by 
private business, sometimes by absence from the pro- 
vince or by illness. In a few cases it appears that the 
members had actually not been informed of the time of 
holding the sessions. The difficulties of travel no doubt 
had much to do with mere tardiness.^ 

The earlier assemblies did not suffer from the absence 
of members as much as the later ones, although in the 
first assembly so prominent a person as Col. Richard 
Townley did not attend the first session at all, and was 
a week late in attending the second. •• Afterward, how- 
ever, it became necessary to take action in the matter, 
and when members disregfarded the orders of the assem- 



-fc>' 



^ N^ew Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 157, 158, 162. 

"^ Assembly Journal, Maj' i, 1733. 

^ Ibid., passim. * Ibid., Sept. 8, 1704. 



364 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



bly to attend, the sergeant-at-arms was sent to arrest 
and bring them to their duty. This course appears to 
have been followed first by the fourth assembly of Love- 
lace's time, and Capt. William Morris and Enoch Machil- 
son had the doubtful honor of being the first members so 
sent for.' The most extreme case was that of Jacob 
Spicer, of Cape May, who, though originally chosen a 
member of the seventh assembly which first met on 
April 4, 1716, did not attend until December 28, when 
he was "brought up" by the sergeant.^ Spicer ex- 
plained, however, that he had had more than ordinary 
occasion for absence, that he had intelligence that the 
house had been adjourned because of the small pox, and 
that he was preparing to come when the sergeant ar- 
rived. He prayed the house not to consider his absence 
a contempt. Whatever the validity of these excuses, the 
house saw fit to accept them, and Spicer was admitted 
to his seat. 3 

Because of the proper strictness of the house regard- 
ing absence, members having important business some- 
times asked leave-of-absence, a request which the house 
did not always grant. From the beginning of the royal 
rule until Hunter's time, a majority of the members had 
been regarded as a quorum.'* The conflicts of Hunter 
and Burnet with the seventh assembly, however, showed 
that under certain circumstances such a rule as this 
might be dangerous to the power of the house. The 
eighth assembly therefore decided that sixteen of the 
twenty-four members should be a quorum.^ This be- 

'^ Assembly Journal, March 8, 1708-9. 

'Spicer was a suppoiter of Coxe and his absence was apparently 
thought to be a part of the campaign of obstruction of his party. 
^Assembly Journal, Dec. 28, 1716. ^ Ibid., May 21, 1716. 

^ Ibid., March 8, 1721. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 365 

came the rule, but it was subsequently modified by a 
vote allowing thirteen members to organize, adjourn and 
compel the attendance of absentees, though not to do 
business.' 

The house was also compelled to exercise its authority 
in not a few cases of quarrels between its members or 
between members and outside parties. These cases 
usually related to the use of insulting language or to 
efforts to cast reproach or contempt upon representa- 
tives. In times of party conflict such occurrences seem 
to have been rather frequent, as was not unnatural in a 
frontier society. Most of these incidents appear trivial, 
if not actually ridiculous, after this lapse of time, but they 
certainly did not so appear to those concerned in them.^ 

During the session of the fifth assembly in 1709, for 
example, Captain Duncan drew his sword on Mr. Sharp, 
another representative, and tried to kill him. "etc." For 
this offence Duncan was made to acknowledge his fault 
before being allowed to take his seat.^ But the over- 
throw of Coxe and his party in 1716 caused especially 
bitter feeling in the province, and rendered the members 
of the loyal party in the assembly extremely unpopular 
in certain districts. The supporters of Coxe added fuel 
to the fire by circulating various writings attacking their 
opponents. Thus stung to action, the reorganized seventh 
assembly named a committee on libels, with power to send 
for persons and papers, "♦ and numerous complaints of in- 
sults to members were brought before the house. William 
Lawrence reported that he had been insulted by one 
Benj. Johnstone, of Monmouth, who declared in slander- 
ous terms that he had been false to his trust in the as- 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 13, 1728. "^ Ibid., passim. 

^ Ibid., Jan. 11, 1709-10. * Ibid., Jan. 23, 1718-19. 



366 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



sembly. The house voted the words false and scandal- 
ous, and ordered the sergeant to arrest Johnstone, but 
he, having notice, escaped/ A more serious charge was 
soon after made against Major Sandford and Thomas 
Van Buskirk, of Bergen, for scandalizing Philip Schuyler, 
the representative of the same county. Sandford and 
Van Buskirk were brought in by the sergeant and charged 
with reporting that Schuyler " drank a health to the 
damnation of the governor and the justices of the peace." 
Sandford acknowledged this utterance, and presented an 
afifidavit of John Wright, coroner of Bergen, to prove it. 
Schuyler denied the statement of affidavit, but admitted 
that they had quarrelled and that he had kicked John 
Wright. Schuyler was ordered to withdraw and given 
leave to go home and collect evidence. Sandford and 
Van Buskirk were now discharged without paying fees. 
Finally on February 20, 17 18, the house considered the 
case, both Schuyler and Wright attending. Wright de- 
sired more time to produce his proof, but was asked to 
name the persons to whom he related what passed be- 
tween him and Schuyler. Three were called, but none 
remembered the words charged. The house then voted 
that Schuyler was not guilty, and he took his seat.= 

This case is highly typical, but, after the passing away 
of the excitement, such brawls became more infrequent. 
The most striking later case was in 1730, when, during 
the first meeting under Montgomerie, Fenwick Lyell, 

^Assembly Journal. Jan. 24 and Feb. 3, 1718-ig. William Lawrence 
was a member of the anti-ijiroprietary party who had capitulated to their 
victorious opponents. At the same time Titan Leeds was arrested 
because of a passage in his almanac, but he escaped from custody. One 
John Harriet was also taken for insulting members and hindering their 
passage of Amboy Ferry. 

"^ Assembly Jottrval, Jan. 30, Feb. 6, 14, 20, 1718-19. 



THE GENERAL 'ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 367 

the prominent proprietor, was charged with assaulting 
a member of the house.' Lyell fled frorri arrest, but soon 
after the end of the session again beat his enemy. For 
this act he was arrested by order of the house, but now 
humbly acknowledged his offense and begged pardon of 
the assembly and of the assaulted representative. He 
was then discharged. - 

But the assembly was not infrequently called upon to 
apply discipline to offenses of a nature different from 
such outbreaks of anger or party feeling. In several im- 
portant instances the power of expulsion was used in 
matters of much political importance. The first case 
appears at the opening of the famous third assembly in 
1707. When the house, in April of that year, began its 
great investigation into the collection of the " Blind 
Tax," it called upon Capt. John Bowne, then a member 
from Monmouth, one of the most prominent leaders 
of the anti-proprietary party in East Jersey, and known 
to have been with Richard Salter, the leader in raising 
the bribe, to testify to the committee on grievances as to 
what he had done with the money. ^ Bowne refused to 
take oath, and the house then voted, with one dissenting 
voice, that he was in contempt. Next day it appeared 
that John Langstaff, one of the most prominent wit- 
nesses, had been imprisoned by the sheriff of Burlington 
at the suit of Capt. Bowne. The house then at once ex- 
pelled him.t The conduct of Bowne had been such that 
the assembly was surely justified ; by getting rid of him, 
however, they certainly removed a serious obstacle to the 
success of their investigation. 

^ Assembly Journal , June 30, 1730. 

^Ibid., July I, 2, 6, 7, 1730, and May 15, 18, 24, 1733. 

^ Ibid., April 29, 1707. ^ Ibid., April 30, 1707. 



368 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Such severity did not have to be resorted to again 
until the fifth assembly, under Ingoldsby. This assembly 
was rather queerly constituted from a party standpoint. 
The majority seems to have been unfavorable to the 
proprietors and not ill-disposed to Ingoldsby, though 
not bitterly hostile to the proprietary interests. The 
house ordered a bill prepared for settling the rights of 
the proprietors and purchasers of East Jersey, and re- 
ferred it to a committee of w^hich Thomas Gordon was 
chairman, but which had an anti-proprietary majority, 
including the bitter Elisha Lawrence and Mott, of Mon- 
mouth. The committee in due time reported that they 
had blotted out the entire bill except the title. Lawrence, 
who delivered the report, said he thought this was the 
best amendment they could make to it. But Gordon 
explained that Lawrence, contrary to his consent as 
chairman, "did blot out the bill," and that Mott had 
forcibly detained him in the room while Lawrence did 
so. The house voted both Lawrence and Mott in con- 
tempt,' and ordered them to be brought to the bar of 
the house to ask forgiveness and to acknowledge the 
favor of the house in not expelling them. This they did 
and were then reinstated.'' But the motion to bring in 
another bill for the proprietors was squarely defeated. 
It seems not unlikely that the house had intended to 
smother the bill as gently as possible, but Lawrence and 
Mott by their violence had deranged the plan. 

The triumph of the proprietary party in controlling 
Hunter's first assembly — the sixth — brought with it 
punishment for some of their foes in the house. When 
feeling between the council clique and the house was 
running high, the latter body took up for consideration 

^Assembly Journal, Jan. 2, 1709-10. '^ Ibid., Jan. 3, 1709-10. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 



369 



the address sent by Lieutenant-Governor Ingoldsby and 
the council to the Crown in Cornbury's time. This they 
voted false and scandalous. It was then voted that no 
signer of the scandalous document was a fit member of 
the house unless he acknowledged his fault. But Major 
Sandford, then a representative from Bergen, but previ- 
ously of Cornbury's council, admitted that he had signed, 
and, when asked to acknowledge his guilt, said that he 
had signed as a member of the council and was respon- 
sible only to the Crown. He was thereupon expelled. 
January 17, 17 10- 11.' 

Immediately after the expulsion of Sandford, the house 
turned its attention to the conduct of Mott and Elisha 
Lawrence, who had made entry in the journal of the 
council of their reasons for defeating the bill appropria- 
ting money to support New Jersey's quota in the 
Nicholson-Vetch expedition to Canada. "^ It was well 
understood that their action had been part of a scheme 
to injure the Quakers by making them seem to be to 
blame for opposing the military measures of the Crown. 
The house had previously endeavored to obtain a sight 
of the reasons entered by the two Monmouth members, 
but had failed. Now, however, Hunter caused the clerk 
of the council to submit a copy.^ The house, after con- 
sidering them, resolved that the application made by 
Mott and Lawrence to have them entered upon the 
council books was an arraignment of the honor of the 
house. 3 Mott, who was then a member, was asked to 
acknowledge his fault, but hesitated, and was given 
further time to consider. Next day Mott replied that 
he was not conscious of having done the assembly any 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 22. "^ Ibid., vol. xiii. p. 381. 

^ Assembly Journal , Jan. 18, 1710-11. 



370 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



wrong. He was then told to withdraw while the house 
considered his case. The house then debated the pre- 
amble and reasons given in the entry of Mott and 
Lawrence, and voted them false and scandalous. Mott 
was recalled, but once more refused to acknowledge his 
fault. Thereupon the house expelled him.' 

But when the new elections were held in Bergen and 
Monmouth, both Sandford and Mott were returned. 
These returns the house, of course, rejected. Sandford, 
indeed, was arrested and brought before the assembly 
for uttering words that grossly reflected upon it. He 
succeeded, however, in explaining that his words did 
not refer to the existing house, and was dismissed. But 
Mott was declared incapable of sitting until he acknowl- 
edged his fault. ^ 

At the third session of the sixth assembly Mott was 
again returned, but was once more kept out.^ Mon- 
mouth then elected Elisha Lawrence, who was equally 
guilty with Mott. He was qualified, but the house voted 
that he should not be permitted to serve till he also had 
confessed his fault. But, like Mott, he remained stub- 
born and was expelled.'* When he was again returned, 
the house, as in the previous case, resolved that he was 
incapable of sitting until he acknowledged his ofifence.s 
Meanwhile both Monmouth and Bergen had been long 
without members. A new writ had been issued for 
Bergen but not returned.^ Finally, however, Philip 
Schuyler was qualified for Bergen on Feb. 2, 1713.'' The 
electors of Monmouth were more stubborn. But even- 

^ Assembly Journal , Jan. 19, 1710-11. 

''-Ibid., Jan. 29, Feb. 2, 1710-11. '^ Ibid., Dec. 8, 9, 1713. 

"" Ibid., Jan. 4, 1713-14. '"Ibid., Jan. 27, 1713-14. 

^•Ibid., Jan. 6, 1 713-14. ''Ibid., Feb. 2, 1713-14. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 



Z7^ 



tually, on Feb. 25, Elisha Lawrence drew up a paper 
regarding his conduct and presented it to the house. 
This explanation was voted satisfactory, and he was 
admitted.' As to its contents we can only guess. Ap- 
parently it was not the humble confession of fault which 
the house desired. 

The punishment of Sandford, Mott and Lawrence was, 
of course, an efifort by the assembly to take vengeance 
upon their opponents for the opposition they were offer- 
ing to Hunter. But it appears only to have increased 
hostility instead of lessening it. 

The seventh assembly, beginning in April, 1716, 
brought a more interesting use of the house's power of 
discipline. At the opening of the session this house was 
under control of Coxe. but so hostile was it toward 
Hunter that he adjourned it till May 7. In spite of the 
bitter protest which the house had offered against violat- 
ing the act of 1709. requiring all sessions to be held at 
Burlington, Hunter persisted in ordering the assembly 
to meet at Perth Amboy. Coxe and his partisans there- 
fore adopted the policy of absenting themselves to defeat 
the governor. Cornbury had thus been defeated by the 
second assembly, but Hunter was of different stamp. On 
May 7 a quorum did not appear, and the adjournment 
was continued for a week. On May 14 only nine mem- 
bers appeared ; the governor then prorogued the assem- 
bly from day to day till the 17th, when the members 
present offered an address praying Hunter to take meas- 
ures which would compel attendance.^ His excellency 
therefore sent warrants "to several absentees," com- 

'' Assembly Jouryial , Feb. 2, 1713-14. 
- New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 13. 



372 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



manding them to attend or they "would answer the con- 
trary on their peril."' 

Four members, thus intimidated, obeyed, and a majority 
now being assembled. Hunter sent for them and spoke 
recommending them to meet and to choose another 
speaker in place of the rebellious Coxe, in order to 
enable themselves to send their sergeant for the ab- 
sentees.^ This advice the members, of course, followed, 
and elected as speaker John Kinsey, who, being a 
Quaker, was strongly opposed to Coxe. Hunter warmly- 
approved the choice, and proceeded to open the session 
in due form by the usual speech. But the first business 
of the house was naturally regarding its insurgent mem- 
bers. Its first vote was that the absence of Coxe, to 
defeat the service "of the king and country," was a con- 
tempt and breach of trust. It was then resolved that he 
was a person unfit to sit in the house. ^ The case of 
William Lawrence, of Monmouth, was then taken up. 
He had not only absented himself, but had disobeyed 
Hunter's warrant, and the sergeant was ordered to bring 
him at once before the assembly. It was next resolved 
that Elisha Lawrence of Monmouth, Henry Joyce of 
Salem Town, William Hall and William Clews of Salem 
County, Jacob Spicer and Jacob Hulings of Cape May, 
Richard Bull of Gloucester, and David Ackerman and 
Henry Brockholst of Bergen, should repair at once to 
the house or answer the contrary on their peril. Each 
was ordered served with a copy of the order.'* 

Next day the house formally expelled Coxe.^ But 
William Lawrence, who was brought before the house in 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 14; Assembly Journal, May 19, 
1716. 
* Ibid., May 19, 1716. ^ Ibid., May 21, 1716. 

*Ibid., May 21, 1716. "Ibid., May 22, 1716. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY L\' ACTION 



37^ 



custody, after hesitating and asking time, acknowledged 
his guilt and humbly begged the pardon of the house. 
He was therefore allowed to take his seat." Soon 
after, upon application from the assembly, Hunter re- 
ported that the sergeant had not found the members 
of Bergen County at home, but had left the order for 
their attendance at their houses. The house at once 
voted them in contempt and expelled them : Brockholst 
and Ackerman.- Five days later the sergeant reported 
that he had left the orders of the assembly at the homes 
of as many of the absent members as he could. None of 
them paid any attention. The house thereupon voted 
them in contempt and expelled Hewlings, Bull, Hall. 
Clews and Joyce.^ An exception was made of Spicer, 
because he had never attended any of the sessions, and 
had not even been qualified. He was voted in contempt," 
and his arrest was ordered, as has been described above. 

New elections were ordered in place of the expelled 
persons, and both Bull and Hall were reelected, but the 
house would not receive them and ordered a new choice.^ 
By the close of the next — the third — session of the 
seventh assembly all the vacancies but two had been 
filled. 

Though the expulsion of Coxe and his party evidently 
aroused the bitterest feeling in the province, it proved 
nevertheless a masterstroke for Hunter, Kinsey and their 
party, for it gave the proprietary interest a renewed con- 
trol over all the departments of the government. Coxe 
was forced from the Jerseys,^ and his followers were soon 
overawed. The modern student can hardly help sympa- 
thizing with those who maintained that a law of the 

\4ssembly Journal, May 23, 1716. 'Ibid., May 25, 1716. 

^Ibid., May 30, 31, 1716. * Ibid., May 31, June i, Dec. 4, 1716. 

'Ibid., Nov. 28, 1 716. ^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iv, p. 258. 



374 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



province was of more binding force than the governor's 
instructions. But in this matter, as in most of the rest, 
the issue was at bottom poHtical ; the struggle was one 
of parties, not of principles primarily, and the success of 
Hunter's policy was undoubtedly for the interest of the 
Jerseys. 

So thoroughly were the angry feelings allayed that 
during the rest of the union period there occurred no 
further cases of expulsion or, indeed, of strong disciplin- 
ary measures over members of the house. 

But any detailed description of the various fields in 
which the assembly exerted power may give a false 
impression. The chief work of the assembly was. of 
course, legislative — work which certainly took up the 
greater part of its time and attention. This was the 
more true also toward the close of the period, when the 
bitterness of the earlier party struggles had been to a 
great extent allayed. Under Burnet especially, the ses- 
sions were business-like and industrious in the extreme.' 

Before leaving the subject of the assembly in action, 
there is, however, one other aspect of its work which 
must be indicated. It is undeniable that there was a 
constant tendency on the part of the representatives to 
enlarge their sphere of action at the expense of the 
other organs and officers of the province. No doubt, 
under the circumstances, this was a healthy tendency, 
but it naturally gave rise to conflicts, as will be hereafter 
more fully indicated, and to complaints of the aggres- 
sions of the house. 

The house endeavored continually to dictate to the 
governor regarding his appointments. It has already 
been shown that the later governors were obliged always 

' Assembly Journal, passtin. 



THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACTION 



375 



to name " treasurers " agreeable to the house. Under 
Burnet, the house addressed the governor to dismiss the 
chief justice and to name some one residing in the prov- 
ince.' To this prayer Burnet yielded by naming the 
speaker of the house himself, William Trent. ^ The ninth 
assembly endeavored, though unsuccessfully, to secure 
the appointment of John Kinsey, Jr., as attorney-gen- 
eral.^ The house also endeavored to establish court 
fees, though the instructions gave this power specifically 
to the governor. It tried to fix by law the times of 
meetings of the assembly and the duration of assemblies.* 
The General Assembly even tried on two important 
occasions to usurp the powers of the courts themselves: 
once under Ingoldsby, when a bill was prepared by it 
setting aside the judgment against Peter Blacksfield and 
restoring him to his estate; ^ and once under Burnet, 
when a measure was sent up for compelling the estate of 
Thomas Gordon, the late treasurer, to pay the sum in 
which the auditing committee had found his accounts 
deficient.*^' Both of these measures were defeated with 
difficulty by the governor and council. 

In New Jersey the assembly did actually succeed in 
establishing full control over one very important means 
of communication between the provincial government 
and the home authorities. This w'as in the matter of the 
provincial agent at London. At his last meeting with 
the assembly, Hunter, upon the urgent direction of the 
home government, asked for an appropriation for an 
agent. New Jersey was said by the board of trade to be 

^Assembly Journal, Nov. 2^, 1723. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 257. 

^Assembly Jourrial, Jan. 6, 1727-8. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 192. "Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 397. 

''Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 261, 284. 



3/6 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



the only colony without one.' But the house, in spite 
of Hunter's ^reat influence, was unwilling to make the 
expenditure.^ In 1723, under Burnet, the house finally 
voted £100 for an agent, and engaged Peter La Heupe, 
well known as a representative of other colonies. ^ It was 
ordered, however, that the agent should correspond with 
the general assembly by letters directed to the speaker. ^ 
Thus La Heupe was really the agent of the house alone 
rather than of the entire provincial government, as 
Hunter and Burnet had intended. La Heupe does not 
seem, however, to have been continued as agent, but in 
1727, when the feeling for a separate government was 
becoming strong, Richard Partridge was made agent on 
practically the same terms, and £100 was given him.^ A 
committee, including Johnstone and Kinsey, was also 
named, to which £270 was ordered given to transmit to 
the agent as had been or might be directed. ^ During 
the ensuing years the committee kept up correspondence 
with the agent, presumably in defiance of the policy of 
Montgomerie against separation, and as has been indi- 
cated, Partridge contributed materially to the final estab- 
lishment of a distinct executive for the Jerseys.^ 

The general aggressiveness of the assembly will, how- 
ever, be more clearly indicated in the section on the 
departments of the government in conflict. It is hoped 
that a sufficiently clear idea of its character and usual 
work has been given to make plain the tremendous 
power which it displayed against both the chief executive 
and the council. 

^ Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 82. 

" Assembly Jom-nal, Jan. 23, 1718-19. '^Ibid., Nov. 27, 1723. 

"Ibid., Feb. 9, 1727-8. ^ Ibid., Feb. 10, 1727-8. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 303, 448. Partridge was also en- 
gaged in efforts to secure approval for the rather doubtful financial leg- 
islation of the province. 



CHAPTER XXII 
Executive and Legislative in Conflict 

The first assembly held under the royal government 
met on November lo, 1703, at Perth Amboy, with every 
outward appearance of harmony. It contained members 
of both the proprietary and anti-proprietary parties in 
East Jersey, as well as a considerable Quaker delegation 
from West Jersey. The majority, however, represented 
the proprietary interest, as was soon shown by the choice 
of Thomas Gordon as speaker. At the commencement 
of the session, the house, following the custom of similar 
colonial bodies, requested as privileges that the members 
and their servants be free from arrest during the session, 
that they might have free access to the governor's per- 
son, that they might have free speech and favorable 
construction in all debates, that in case of difference be- 
tween the houses a committee of the council might be 
named to confer with one from the assembly to adjust 
and reconcile, and that the foregoing requests might 
be approved by Cornbury and entered on the council 
books. ' 

The governor addressed the house in a favorable 
speech, assuring them of the benefits of royal govern- 
ment, and making a plea for the reconciliation of past 
differences. He further instructed them as to the form 

'^ Assembly Journal. Nov. 10, 1703. 

2,77 



378 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

in which bills should be passed. And lastly, following 
his instructions, recommended the raising of a revenue 
to support the government in proper dignity and the 
confirmation of the rights of the proprietors. He con- 
cluded by urging dispatch and unanimity.' 

Immediately afterward, however, came the first note of 
discord, when Cornbury, though granting the other 
privileges requested by the house, refused their fourth 
request as an innovation.^ Nevertheless, the house 
unanimously voted a congratulatory address to the gov- 
ernor, which shows no trace of suspicion as to his true 
character. 3 

But the harmony of action did not long continue. 
The assembly was almost immediately involved in a dis- 
pute as to the election of five of its East Jersey mem- 
bers, the validity of which was attacked by the anti- 
proprietary party.* With this quarrel we need not here 
concern ourselves, except to note that it made plain that 
Gordon and the proprietary interest controlled the house,^ 
and led to the exclusion of Richard Hartshorne, one of 
the most prominent of their opponents.^ 

The further conduct of the house soon gave additional 
proof that it regarded the protection of the rights of the 
proprietors as its chief aim. The first bill reported was 
the so-called " Long Bill," confirming the proprietary 
title to the soil of the province, and thereby ensuring the 
payment of quit-rent, and quashing all claims arising from 
the Nicolls grants and the Efizabethtown purchase.' 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 8. 

'^ Assembly Journal, Nov. lo, 1703. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 11. 

*^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 12. 1703. ^Ibid.. Nov. 18, 1703. 

^Ibid., Nov. 17. 1703. 'Ibid., Nov. 22. 1703. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 3-g 

This bill was soon followed by another, prohibiting the 
unlicensed purchase of land from the Indians ; ' and a third 
for the enforcement of a tax of £1,400, laid in 1700 for 
the support of the proprietary government of West 
Jersey, the collection of which had been a failure.^ A 
bill was also passed by the house determining the salaries 
and fees of its members.^ Meanwhile, after having cared 
for the interests of the party it represented, the assembly 
agreed to raise £1000 for the support of the government 
for one year and £300 for representatives' fees, the sala- 
ries of royal officers, and other incidental charges. 

This action was too much for Cornbury, whose interest 
in the whole proceeding came to an end when he saw 
the hopelessness of obtaining a satisfactory grant. He 
refused to approve any of the bills, with the single 
exception of that relating to Indian purchases, and 
ended the session with a sharp speech, on the ground 
that the season was too far advanced to allow of further 
discussion.* He still held out the possibility of recon- 
ciliation with the dominant party, however, by his state- 
ment that the members had at least learned where the 
difficulties in settling affairs lay, and by expressing the 
hope that when the assembly met in the spring they 
might be promptly removed. Meanwhile Cornbury, in 
spite of the fact that he had already received a substantial 
"gift" from the proprietary leaders, ' had been led to 
negotiate, through Col. Robert Ouary, with the anti- 
proprietary party, with a view of arriving at an under- 
standing, and assurance had been given that in a new 

^ Assembly Jourval, Nov. 23, 1703. 
-Ibid.. Nov. 26. 1703. '■''Ibid., Dec. 7. 1703. 

*Ibid., Dec. 13, 1703. Ne7c Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 28. 
'Ibid., vol. iii, p. 207. 



38o 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



election that faction was ready to choose men who would 
"effectually answer all the ends of government."' 

The assembly did not meet the next spring, but was 
further prorogued by proclamation until September ist, 
1704,'' when it finally came together at Burlington. 
Cornbury in his speech urged that a sufificient support 
be provided for the government, and stated the need of 
a good militia act and provision for the building and 
repair of high roads. He also said that the rights of the 
proprietors and the possessions of all the inhabitants 
claiming under them should be confirmed, but that he 
did not believe that this end could be accomplished by 
the bill prepared last session. Finally, he urged dispatch 
in order that he might attend the meeting of the as- 
sembly of New York at the beginning of next month. ^ 

The house proceeding to business somewhat more 
promptly than at its first session, carried through a bill 
for " uniting and quieting the minds of all the Queen's 
subjects within this province,""* as also one for suppres- 
sing vice, 5 and made progress upon bills for laying out, 
regulating and preserving highways, for regulating negro 
and Indian slaves, for ascertaining the boundaries and 
limits of the counties, and for other useful objects. 
Meanwhile, however, bills for confirming the rights of 
the proprietors had once more made their appearance, 
which seem to have been similar in character to that of 
the first session, though now there were separate meas- 
ures for East and West Jersey.*' On September 12th 
the matter of support was taken up, but the best that 
the assembl}'- would do was to grant £1,500 for one 

^ A'ew Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 16. ''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 65. 

'■^ Assembly Journal, Sept. 7, 1704. ^Ibid., Sept. 11, 1704. 

^Ihid., Sept. 26, 1704. ''Ibid., Sept. 28, 1704. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 381 

year and £1,000 per annum for the next two years.' 
The progress upon the revenue bill was slow, and it 
became evident that the majority of the house in- 
tended to connect its fate with that of the proprietors' 
bills. Cornbury's patience and time were now exhausted. 
Summoning the house, he made a peppery speech, accus- 
ing them of delaying the revenue bill until they knew 
that he could not stay to pass it, and berating them for 
failure to even consider the defence of the province. 
With the declaration that they had failed both queen and 
country, he then dissolved the assembly." 

But while Cornbury made great show of righteous 
wrath against the assembly, there is good evidence to 
prove that his motives were far from disinterested. An 
investigation, later carried on by the assembly of 1707-8, 
brought together abundant proof that a corruption fund 
had been raised by the anti-proprietary party in East 
Jersey for the purpose of obtaining the dissolution of 
the assembly, and getting a new one hostile to the 
proprietary claims. The leaders in the movement, for 
which it must be admitted some of the proprietors had 
already set a precedent, were Richard Salter, who seems 
to have done most in the actual collecting of the "Blind 
Tax," and John Bowne. While it could not be shown 
definitely that Cornbury himself actually received the 
moneys thus gathered, the circumstantial evidence is 
almost conclusive against him,' in spite of his positive 
denial."* At any rate, at about this time his lordship 
went over entirely to the popular party. 

The new elections were carried through in undue 

^Assembly Journal, Sept. 13. 1704. 

"^ Ibid., Sept. 28, 1704; Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 65. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 198-219. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 194. 



382 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

haste.' But, in spite of the efforts to secure an assembly 
which would do what was required, the result was not 
wholly satisfactory. The new assembly met at Burling- 
ton, November 13, 1704, and contained John Bowne, 
Richard Salter and Richard Hartshorne, all prominent as 
opponents of the proprietors. Thom^as Gordon, John 
Barclay, and other proprietors appeared among its mem- 
bers, however, and their supporters appeared to have a 
majority of two. Other means had therefore to be em- 
ployed, and when the members presented themselves to 
be sworn or attested, Thomas Revell and Daniel Leeds, 
two of the council from West Jersey, who were parties 
to the agreement for obtaining an anti-proprietary house, 
objected to Thomas Lambert, Thomas Gardiner and 
Joshua Wright, three Quakers from West Jersey, on the 
ground that they were not qualified to serve, because 
they did not own the required amount of land. Corn- 
bury therefore refused them the affirmations.^ Revell 
and Leeds at once petitioned the assembly, stating that 
they had good cause for suspecting the three members, 
but that they desired fourteen days in which to make 
their grounds of objection plain. After debate, this 
worthy petition was granted, ^ and when, on the next day 
the three members produced copies of surveys in proof 
of their qualifications, they were also put off by being 
granted time in which to make their case stronger.'* 

As the three members did not appear on the appointed 
day, it was voted that they should be heard only by peti- 
tion. ^ On December 4th their petition for admission was 
received, and they were voted a hearing on the next day. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 87. '^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 88. 

'^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 15 and 16, 1704. 

^Ibid., Nov. 19. 1704. '"Ibid., Dec. i, 1704. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 383 

Revell and Leeds were acquainted with the decision,' but 
appear to have been satisfied with what they had already 
accomplished. After further postponement for a day the 
three members were at last heard, and showed beyond 
dispute that they owned the required one thousand acres. 
The assembly therefore requested Cornbury that they be 
allowed to qualify themselves.'' But before this could be 
done, Cornbury brought the session to an end on De- 
cember 1 2th. Thus, by the most barefaced violation of 
the right of representation, his lordship and the anti- 
proprietary party secured a scant majority during the 
entire session. Their conduct had, however, aroused 
their opponents to the necessity of a more determined 
opposition. 

The assembly had been adjourned till May, 1705, at 
Burlington, but although the governor and the members 
from East Jersey journeyed to that town at the required 
time none of the members from West Jersey appeared 
with the exception of those from the town of Burlington. 
The East Jersey representatives became uneasy at the 
turn things had taken, and petitioned to be allowed to 
return home. Cornbury consented, and the session was 
postponed until December, at Amboy.^ 

On December 15, 1705, the assembly at last met, 
although the members from the Western Division were 
still tardy about coming. The question as to the rights 
of the three members, which had thus remained unsettled 
for a year, at once came up, and now the majority of the 
house was strong against the governor. The house 
promptly voted that the three members should be admit- 
ted. But Cornbury replied that, as the queen had re- 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 4, 1704. -Ibid., Dec. 6, 1704. 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 103. 



384 T^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

posed a trust in him, he also, as well as the house, should 
be satisfied as to their qualifications. When it was rep- 
resented to him that the three members had deeds and 
records which had satisfied the house, he agreed, how- 
ever, to consider these upon the next day.' The mem- 
bers therefore attended the governor, and he took " min- 
utes " of their proofs. But, instead of admitting them, 
he dismissed them, saying that he would send for them 
if he found occasion. But the house at last met the 
arbitrary conduct of Cornbury resolutely, and resolved 
that it would not proceed until its membership was 
full.^ Their action was decisive, and the three members 
were qualified and took their places. ^ Thus the proprie- 
tors once more controlled the majority of the lower 
house. 

Nor was Cornbury's action allowed to pass wholly 
unrebuked. In his letter of February 17, 1704-5, to the 
lords of trade, describing the first session of the second 
assembly, the governor passed over the affair in silence.'' 
But the matter, with other abuses, was brought to the 
notice of the home government b}' a memorial from the 
West Jersey Society, received September i, 1705.^ In 
a later letter to Secretary Hedges,^ as well as through 
Mr. Soper, his personal agent in England, Cornbury was 
obliged to explain his attitude toward the three members 
in order to justify his conduct in his later dealings with 
the assembly.^ As a result, the lords of trade "advised" 
his lordship not to interfere with the privileges of the 
house. ^ 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 17, 1705. -Ibid., Oct. 18, 1705. 

^ Ibid., Oct. 26, 1705. "" New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 68. 
"Ibid., vol. iii, p. 85. ^Ibid., vol. iii, p. II2. 

''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 137. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 126. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 385 

Cornbury and his supporters had, however, already 
attained some of their objects. The first session of the 
second assembly had promptly carried through an act 
granting £2000 for the support of the government, 
though even the anti-proprietary party had been un- 
willing to vote this sum for longer than two years. 
Nevertheless, Cornbury had approved the act as the 
best that could be obtained.' The £2000 was to be 
raised in great part by a tax upon the lands of all 
inhabitants who had settled tenants, servants or slaves 
upon their real estate,' Thus the act of support 
also aimed a blow at the proprietors, many of whom 
had extensive grants, small portions of which they had 
settled by servants or tenants. The assembly, in addi- 
tion, passed an act for uniting and quieting the minds of 
all her Majesty's subjects within this province, which put 
an end to all prosecutions for acts committed before 1703 
except in the case of such offenses as treason or piracy;' 
and another altering the mode of electing representa- 
tives, so that all resident freeholders might vote for and 
be returned as members of the assembly.' This last 
measure was designed to take the control of the house 
from the proprietors, in whose favor the high property 
qualifications worked. The house also accepted a rigor- 
ous militia act sent down by the council, and aimed 
especially at the Quakers.^ An apparently useful meas- 
ure was passed for the improving of highways.' But 
this, too, served a party use, for in executing it every 
effort was made to construct roads so as to injure pro- 
prietary lands. "* 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 12, 1704. 

"^ Laws Enacted hi 1704 (Bradford print). ^ Ibid. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 280. 



386 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



Two other acts were passed — one for suppressing vice 
and one regulating negro and Indian slaves.' All the 
acts of this assembly however, except the measure 
against vice and that preventing prosecutions for acts 
before 1703, were eventually disallowed by the home 
government, but not, of course, before they had gone 
into efifect, and accomplished something of their objects.' 
Cornbury, in his closing speech, expressed great satisfac- 
tion with the readiness of the house to agree with the 
council.^ 

The breach between the governor and the majority of 
the assembly over the qualification of the three members, 
however, destroyed the harmony between the executive 
and the legislature, as it eventually gave complete con- 
trol of the house to Cornbury's opponents. The house, 
in the session of October and November, 1705, at length 
began business by preparing a sarcastic address of thanks 
to the governor, in which they expressed their gratitude for 
his favorable opening speech, and for his allowing them 
"an opportunity to prepare laws.""* This done, they at 
once commenced the preparation of bills for confirming 
the rights of the proprietors, entrusting the work to a 
committee with a proprietary majority, including Gardiner 
and Lambert. 5 The house voted, indeed, to consider the 
recommendation of the governor, that the charges of the 
government before the settling of the revenue be de- 
frayed,^ but showed little intention to take action upon 
it until the fate of their own measures was assured. 
Cornbury, therefore, seeing that his case was hopeless, 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 12, 1704. 

^ Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 

^Assembly Journal, Dec. 12, 1704. ^ Ibid., Nov. i, 1705. 

^Ibid., Nov. 2, 1705. ''Ibid., Nov. 3, 1705. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 387 

adjourned the assembly till the next spring at Burlington. 
His closing speech, as usual, heaped all the blame upon 
the refractory house. ' 

It was not until October, 1706, however, that the 
assembly actually met for its third session at Amboy.' 
But, as no quorum appeared, Cornbury was obliged to 
adjourn the house till next day. The daily adjournment 
continued into November, when the governor in disgust 
adjourned the legislature by proclamation till the next 
spring. Later, by the advice of Quary and others of the 
council, he dissolved the second assembly, and ordered a 
new election. 3 

If Cornbury had an expectation of obtaining a house 
which would be more favorable to the government, he 
was doomed to disappointment, for the third assembly 
contained an overwhelming proprietary majority. Prom- 
inent among its members were Lewis Morris, the real 
leader of the proprietary interests, who was under sus- 
pension as a member of the council, and Samuel Jen- 
nings, the West Jersey Quaker proprietor, who had only 
recently resigned from the council. These two men at 
once assumed a position of leadership in the house, Jen- 
nings being chosen speaker.'* 

Cornbury opened the session, nevertheless, with a 
hopeful speech. He recommended first the settling of a 
sufficient revenue upon the government, as the former 
act had now expired, and stated that the home govern- 
ment, out of its great consideration for the province 
had instructed him to accept £1,500 a year instead of 
the £2,000 formerly granted, but expected that the 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 8, 1705. ''Ibid., Oct. 25. 1706. 

■^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 160. 
"" Assembly Journal, April 5, 1707. 



388 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

grant would be for twenty-one years. He also again 
went through the form of recommending a bill confirm- 
ing the rights of the proprietors and inhabitants. Corn- 
bury then urged that measures be passed for the better 
care of highways, for settling the qualifications of jury- 
men, for levying a scale of import duties uniform with 
that of New York, and for reviving the now expired 
militia act. He advised also that the laws of the prov- 
ince before the surrender be examined and any acts 
thought still useful be revived.' 

But the house at once resolved itself into a committee 
of the whole upon grievances.^ The first act of the 
committee was to decide, after some debate, that it had 
the right to name a clerk of its own, and to choose 
Farmar, one of its own members, for the place. \ This 
action was to rid the committee of Anderson, the regular 
clerk of the house, who was a partisan of Cornbury. 
The governor now believed that he had a good oppor- 
tunity to interfere, and, calling the house before him, 
accused them of unprecedented irregularities in turning 
out the clerk of the house and in appointing one of the 
members, thus depriving him of the right of debating 
and voting. He warned the house to proceed directly 
to business. 3 

The assembly decided to consider this speech as a 
house, and formally voted that the committee of the 
whole had a right to its own clerk. ^ Next day, going 
into committee, it ordered Anderson to withdraw. But 
he refused, saying that he was bound by his oath, where- 
upon Morris reported that Anderson had said that he 
was sworn to discover debates that were dangerous to 

^ N^ew Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 165. 

'^ Assembly Journal, April 8, 1707. '^Jbid., April 9, 1707. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 389 

the government. This speech was promptly voted a 
misdemeanor, and a scandalous reflection upon the 
members.' The house, however, instead of acting: in- 
dependently, addressed Cornbury, asking him to remove 
the misunderstanding by naming a new clerk, who was 
a resident of New Jersey, as it was a great injury that 
the records might be carried from the province.- Corn- 
bury, in reply, said that he was willing to gratify the 
house so far as was reasonable, but wished to know what 
conduct of the clerk had been scandalous. A committee 
of the house was named to consider the reply, but 
Anderson, though required, still refused to withdraw. 
He even said that he was sworn to discover debates 
dangerous to the government, and that he did not know 
but that the committee were going to have such debates. ^ 

Next day, however, Cornbury summoned the house, 
and stated that he had dismissed Anderson, and named 
Capt. John Pinhorne as clerk. ^ The house made no ob- 
jection to the choice, but did not allow Pinhorne to act 
as clerk of the committee, retaining Farmar in that 
capacity.^ Cornbury, though displeased, made no further 
active objection, and the house thus scored its first 
victory of the session. 

The house next applied to the secretary, ex-Governor 
Basse, for all the laws of both divisions, but the secretary 
replied that he could not deliver them without Corn- 
bury's order. He objected, also, that the order from 
the house was not signed by the clerk, as such orders 
should be.^ But when the house insisted, the secretary 
finally sent word that they could have such papers as 

^ Assembly Journal, April 10, 1707. -Ibid., April 17, 1707. 

I ^ Ibid., April 18, 1707. ^ Ibid., April 19, 1707. 

"New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 227. 



390 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

they wished.' Meanwhile the house had asked Cornbury 
for a sergeant-at-arms, a request which the governor 
granted without objection.^ 

After these preliminary skirmishes, the house once 
more went into committee of the whole upon grievances, 
directing its attention especially to the " Blind Tax," 
which had been collected to dissolve the first assembly. 
Petitions regarding it were considered, witnesses sum- 
moned, and the sergeant was sent to compel the attend- 
ance of those who were unwilling. ^ Cornbury and his 
supporters were now in a trying position. 

The house first attacked one of its own members, 
Capt. John Bowne, who had been prominent in the collec- 
tion of the "Blind Tax." It was ordered that he be ex- 
amined as to what he did with the sum paid to him, and 
when he refused to take oath before the committee, he 
was voted in contempt and committed to the custody of 
the sergeant.'* Meanwhile John Langstafif, one of the 
witnesses, had been arrested and detained in prison by 
the sherifif of Burlington upon the suit of Bowne. For 
this act Bowne was expelled from the house, ^ and Hugh 
Huddy, the sherifif, was compelled to release Langstafif, 
and make submission to the assembly.^ The investiga- 
tion was then pushed actively. Other grievances, in 
addition to the "Blind Tax," were also taken up and 
considered.^ 

At length a petition to the queen, a letter to Robert 
Harley, secretary of state, and an address to the governor, 
were definitely adopted and ordered to be signed by the 
speaker.^ The address to the queen was a short docu- 

' Assembly Journal, April 21, 1707. "^ Ibid., April 21, 1707. 

'^ Ibid., April 21-May i, 1707. ''Ibid., April 29, 1707. 

^ Ibid., April 30, 1707. ^ Ibid., May i, 1707. ''Ibid., May 5, 1707. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 391 

ment, stating briefly the circumstances relating to the 
"Blind Tax," complaining of the exclusion of the three 
members of the second assembly, and setting forth that 
it was impossible to obtain redress from the governor.' 
With it there were sent to the home government a large 
number of affidavits taken by the house which estab- 
lished beyond doubt the collection of the ''Blind Tax," 
and made it clear that the money went to Cornbury, or 
at best to those near him."" Among the affidavits is one 
by Dr. Johnsone, setting forth that, before Cornbury 
had published his commission, he had waited on his lord- 
ship in New York, and left upon his table £200 to encour- 
age the chief executive to be diligent in looking after the 
interests of the proprietors. Although this testimony 
prejudices greatly the political virtue of the proprietary 
faction, the confession therein contained certainly adds 
great strength to the charges against Cornbury. 

On May 8, 1707, the house waited upon the governor 
and presented its address of remonstrance.^ This address 
is declared by Cornbury to have been mainly the work 
of Morris,"* but it was read by Jennings as speaker, and 
he seems to have exhibited the greatest courage and self- 
control upon the occasion. The remonstrance itself is 
in some ways a remarkable document. ^ After expressing 
regret that the afifairs of New York left the governor so 
little time to attend those of New Jersey, the address 
charged Cornbury with suspending the sentence of two 
persons charged with willful murder. It next com- 
plained that persons accused before the grand jury were 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 71. 

^Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 198-219, 274. 

^ Assembly Journal. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 226. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 173. 



392 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

obliged to pay fees, even if found innocent, and urged 
also as a grievance that the only office for the probate of 
wills was kept at Burlington, and that the secretary's 
office was to be found only at the same place. Cornbury 
was next accused of granting a monopoly of trade on 
the road from Amboy to Burlington, and of arbitrarily 
establishing fees in direct contradiction to Magna Charta. 
He was taken to task for interfering with the pro- 
prietors, particularly for putting the records of the east- 
ern division into the hands of Peter Sonmans, and for 
preventing the council of West Jersey proprietors from 
fulfilling its duties. The remonstrance concluded by at- 
tacking Cornbury for the exclusion of the three members 
and for his connection with the "Blind Tax." 

Cornbury appears to have been carried away with 
wrath by the conduct of the assembly. He stated, how- 
ever, that it would require time to prepare his answer.' 
On May 12 he summoned the house and read his reply.^ 
Considering the badness of his cause, this answer is 
cleverly contrived, and we cannot refrain from guessing 
that it was not the work of his lordship himself. It is 
marred, nevertheless, by personal abuse of Morris, Jen- 
nings and the Quakers, whom his lordship charges with 
wishing to subvert all orderly government. The claims 
of the reply are too long to recite in detail. In general, 
the governor endeavored to shield himself behind his in- 
structions. He tried to justify his right to judge of the 
qualifications of the three members, and denied abso- 
lutely and entirely that he had any knowledge of or share 
in the "Blind Tax." He also aimed a counter attack at 
the assembly, accusing them of their irregularities of 

'^ Assembly Journal, May 8, 1707. 

"^ Nerv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 180. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATURE IN CONFLICT 393 

procedure and of a desire to oppose the service of queen 
and country. 

Meanwhile a new subject of controversy between the 
governor and the assembly had appeared. The house 
had, of course, refused to take any action upon measures 
recommended by Cornbury until its grievances had been 
redressed. On May ist the house had asked the council 
to lay before it the receiver-general's accounts for the 
last two years, but the council refused to take any action, 
as no quorum was present.' In reply, the assembly 
refused to consider the defrayment of the charges of the 
government until the accounts were submitted. The 
point was therefore conceded and the accounts submitted.'' 
On May 13 the house took up the matter, and summon- 
ing Fauconnier, the receiver-general, before them, called 
for his vouchers. Fauconnier replied that he could not 
give them without Cornbury's consent. ^ A message was 
therefore sent to the governor, but Cornbury replied 
that he had already done more than was needful in sub- 
mitting the accounts. The vouchers could not be sub- 
mitted legally, for the lord high treasurer had appointed 
an auditor general, and he, not being in the province, 
had deputed one to audit accounts. The receiver-general 
was accountable only to the lord high treasurer. Still, 
if the representatives were dissatisfied with any articles 
of the accounts, and would apply to him he would satisfy 
them.'' 

The reply of the house was to refer Cornbury's reply 
to further consideration, and to order bills brought in 
for confirming the estates of the proprietors and other 
purchasers of land in West Jersey, for ascertaining 

^Assembly Journal, May i, 1707. ^Ibid., May 6, 1707. 

^ Ibid. ^ Ibid., May 14, 1707. 



394 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

representatives' fees, and for ascertaining the qualifica- 
tions of jurymen,' Cornbury, realizing at length that it 
was useless to struggle further, summoned the assembly 
before him and adjourned it until the autum.n.^ 

The recess, however, did little to alter the situation. 
The session was called for October i6, 1707, but it was 
not until the 23d that a quorum was present and the 
assembly met. Cornbury, in his opening speech, ex- 
pressed his anger at the tardy attendance. He then 
recommended the passage of the same measures which 
he had urged upon the previous session, with one or two 
additions, especially a bill for restraining refractory 
negroes.3 But the house promptly resolved that it would 
grant no support until grievances were redressed. When 
that was done it would raise £1500 for one year."* 

The house then asked Cornbury when he would receive 
their reply to his answer to their remonstrance. He 
replied that he would let them know.^ The house there- 
upon determined to send Cornbury a copy of their reply, 
and further ordered it printed and published. The mes- 
sengers of the house met Cornbury by the way and he 
consented to hear their message, "as well here as any- 
where else." But when informed of their having come 
to deliver the " reply," the governor said, " I will not 
receive it; you do not proceed regularly." The house 
therefore could only order the entry of their reply upon 
the journal.^ The reply is a lengthy document, showing 
the fallacy of Cornbury's answer to the grievances of the 

^ Assembly Journal, May 24, 1707. The last measure was to enable 
Quakers to serve. 

'■Ibid., May 16, 1707. ^ Ibid., Oct. 23, 1707. 

'•Ibid., Oct. 2T, 1707. "Ibid., Oct. 28, 1707. 

^Ibid., Oct. 29, 1707. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



395 



house, and refuting his counter charges against the 
assembly. It is most bitter in tone, and was, of course, 
intended as a popular manifesto rather than to convince 
the governor.' 

Meanwhile, after having ordered a bill for confirming 
the rights of the proprietors, with other useful acts, the 
assembly named a committee for revising the former laws 
of the province. But when the committee addressed the 
secretary for the laws, he again declared that he could not 
part with them without order from the governor. When 
sent for, he replied that his attendance was needed by the 
council.- Thus foiled, the house began to consider "a 
certain printer paper" called "Forget and Forgive,"' 
which it resolved did not reflect upon the government. ^ 
Before further action could be taken Cornbury put an end 
to the session. 

During the recess both parties addressed themselves to 
the home government. Lewis Morris sent a long and able 
letter to the secretary of state, together with the petition, 
letter, and afftdavits drawn up by the assembly during 
its first session.'* On the other hand, Cornbury trans- 
mitted an address to the queen from the lieutenant- 
governor and council, complaining of the conduct of the 
assembly.5 

On May 5, 1708, the assembly met for the last time at 
Burlington. Some delay was caused by the illness of the 
speaker, and Cornbury, glad apparently of an excuse to 

^ New Jersey Archh'es, vol. iii, p. 242. 

'^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 31, 1707. 

^Ibid. For composing and publishing this so-called libel, George 
Willocks, John Pike and John Barclay were prosecuted upon informa- 
tion; Mimites of the Supreme Court (i 704-1 71 5), p. 48. 

*' New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 274. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 285, 286. 



396 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



be rid of Jennings, ordered the choice of a new one. 
The house thereupon selected Thomas Gordon, who had 
made himself almost equally obnoxious.' Cornbur)^ 
however, felt obliged to approve the choice. His open- 
ing speech was a mere reproduction of what he had said 
at the beginning of the earlier sessions, urging the sup- 
port of the government for twenty-one years, the revival 
of the militia act, and other measures which he had for- 
merly advised.' 

The house, after due consideration, prepared a reply to 
the speech, which they delivered on May I2th.^ While 
they were sorry for the misunderstanding which had 
arisen, they maintained that most of the grievances which 
they had set forth at their first meeting still existed. 
They now complained further that persons were prose- 
cuted upon informations, which rendered grand juries 
useless and gave the attorney-general power to increase 
his own fortune at the expense of the country. They 
further complained of the great charges due to bringing 
juries and evidences from great distances to the supreme 
courts at Burlington and Amboy, also that lawyers who 
defended persons prosecuted upon informations were 
intimidated from doing their duty by the fear of being 
suspended. Lastly, they asserted that the clerk of the 
Crown had refused to issue a writ for the election of a 
member wanting to the house. 

The assembly hoped that the governor, by removing 
these and other grievances, would enable them to do 
their utmost to support the government, but they were 
convinced that if the queen were rightly informed she 
would not expect them to vote support for more than a 
year. As to the militia bill, they refused to revive it, as 

^ Assembly Journal, May 5, 1708. '^Ibid., May 12, 1708. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



397 



it was a great grievance, though they were very ready 
to provide for the defense of the country. They had 
already prepared a bill confirming the rights of the pro- 
prietors and other purchasers, but had not been allowed 
to perfect it. In revising the laws of the province they 
had been impeded by Secretary Basse, who had refused 
to let them see the laws. The house concluded by ex- 
pressing its determination to do its utmost in serving 
the queen and advancing the interests of the country. 

The firm stand of the assembly was sufficient to con- 
vince Cornbury that he had nothing to gain from con- 
tinuing the session. Immediately after the delivery of 
the answer, he adjourned the assembly until September.' 
Before that time, however, Cornbury had been removed, 
and Lord Lovelace, a man of entirely different disposi- 
tion and views, had been appointed in his place. The 
struggle between executive and legislative was not yet 
to end, but the popular body had nevertheless so far 
gained a victory by its obstinate stand against the high- 
handed course of Cornbury. 

When the fourth assembly began its first session at 
Am boy March 3, 1708, it quickly displayed its confidence 
in the new governor as well as its desire to bring to an 
account the advisers of the hated Cornbury. After the 
selection of Thomas Gordon as speaker," Lovelace 
opened the session by a mild speech stating that he 
would give the province no cause for uneasiness, and re- 
commending the measures for the support of the govern- 
ment and the establishment of the militia which he be- 
lieved needful to the ease of the people. ^ The house 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 291-298. 
'^ Assembly Journal, March 3, 1708. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 309. 



398 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

replied, expressing their confidence in Lovelace and their 
gratitude to the queen for "putting an end to the worst 
administration New Jersey ever knew." They would 
willingly contribute to the government and the gov- 
ernor's reasonable desires should be their command/ 

Nor did the assembly let their promises remain unful- 
filled. They at once proceeded to work upon various 
measures of which the province was greatly in need, owing 
to the virtual absence of legislation under Cornbury. A 
bill granting £1,722, los, 46. for one year for the support 
of the government, a measure re-establishing the militia, 
though with far less severe penalties attached, and a 
number of other important acts were soon carried 
through.^ 

Meanwhile, however, the enemies of the party now in 
control of the house were not left in peace. The attack 
was begun by an address to Lovelace asking for a copy 
of the address which had been sent to the Crown by In- 
goldsby and eight members of the council in 1707 con- 
taining a violent denunciation of the conduct of the house 
and casting the responsibility upon Morris and Jennings.- 
Lovelace at once gave the assembly a copy of the paper,* 
and the house after some discussion once more addressed 
the governor asking that the council should appear be- 
fore the governor to make good their charges and that 
the house might be present. ^ A week later the assembly 
again communicated with Lovelace, asking what action 
would be taken.^ But meanwhile, Ingoldsby, Townley, 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 362. 

^ Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey; Assembly Journal. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, p. 364. 

^ Assembly Journal, March g, 1708. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 2>^']. 

* Assembly Journal, March 22, 1708. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



399 



Quary, Coxe, Pinhorne, and Sanford had applied to the 
governor, asking for time in which to collect suitable 
proof of their charges.' Lovelace therefore assured the 
assembly that the council should answer in a day or two/ 
The learned Chief Justice Mompesson, evidently fearing 
the result, had separated himself from the rest of the 
signers by saying that he had put his name to the ad- 
dress without examining its particulars, as it was cus- 
tomary in similar bodies for all to sign such papers, even 
if they dissented in opinion.' 

The house, meanwhile, prepared an address to the 
Crown to off-set that of Ingoldsbyand his allies in which 
they denied and refuted the charges of the council and 
begged the queen not to be misled. •• At length, in April, 
Ingoldsby and his supporters, who were now again joined 
by Mompesson, presented to Lovelace a lengthy justifi- 
cation of their conduct. ^ It went over all the old grounds 
of quarrel between Cornbury and the house, but was 
violent in tone and marred by personal bitterness. 
Owing to the dissolution of the assembly, no reply from 
the house was received, and the question did not come 
to an issue. 

While this quarrel was going on the house had also 
made a violent attack upon its old enemy, Peter Sonmans, 
a member of the council, for arbitrary conduct in prac- 
tically preventing the persons summoned upon the grand 
jury of Middlesex from serving and then fining them for 
non-attendance.^ To this charge they coupled others of 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 372. 

"^ Assembly Journal, March 23, 1708. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 373. 

*^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 385. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 390. 

^ Assembly Journal, March 18, 1708. 



400 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



perjury, adultery, and other crimes.' But Scnmans man- 
aged to defend himself at such length that no immediate 
result was gained.^ 

The house, however, gained an important advantage 
in another field. It had not forgotten the conduct of 
Receiver-General Fauconnier, and on March 12th it sum- 
moned him once more to submit the vouchers of his ac- 
counts of the last revenue. ^ As this summons had no 
efifect, the house ten days later drew up an address to 
Lovelace, asking him to command Fauconnier, the " re- 
ceiver-general of the last revenue" who was then "in the 
province of New York under your lordship's administra- 
tion " to attend the house with his vouchers and if he 
neglected or refused, to order his securities' bonds to be 
put in suit."^ Lovelace replied to the address that he 
would send for Fauconnier as soon as he knew where he 
was.'^ Directly afterward the house came to a conclusion 
upon the bill for support previously mentioned. But it 
desired that Lovelace would nominate a treasurer for the 
ensuing year who should be approved by the house and 
should be a resident of New Jersey. ^ The governor took 
a day to consider this request and then named Miles 
Forster " receiver-general " for the ensuing year. The 
house promptly voted that he be allowed "treasurer" 
on giving due security.^ 

Thus through the session the house had made good 
progress in its power, and if Lovelace had lived the over- 
throw of Cornbury's supporters would have been assured. 
Before the assembly met again, however, Lovelace was in 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 374. 

* Assembly Journal. '''New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 416. 

*Ibid., vol. iii, p. 379. 

''Assembly Journal, March 23, 1708. ^Ibid., March 24, 1708. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



401 



his grave and Richard Ingoldsby, the lieutenant-governor, 
had stepped into his place. The conflict was now sure 
to reopen. But fortune favored Ingoldsby, for just as he 
took office, Colonels Nicholson and Vetch appeared, in- 
trusted by the Crown with the raising of forces for their 
expedition against Canada. New Jersey's quota was set 
at two hundred men.' Ingoldsby, therefore, had the 
opportunity of appearing in a patriotic role and could 
hope by clever management to make any objections to 
his course offered by the assembly appear in the worst 
light. 

He at once called the legislature by proclamation, 
March 25, 1709, and explained "the extra ordinary ser- 
vice" that was required.^ The assembly immediately 
called into question Ingoldsby's right to the government 
and ordered that the secretary attend, with the record of 
commissions. This occasioned delay, as Basse replied 
that he did not have the records in town. But after a 
little further wrangling he satisfied the house by laying 
before it a copy of Ingoldsby's commission. ^ 

The assembly then proceeded to consider the equip- 
ment of the quota for the expedition, working in consul- 
tation with a conference committee from the council and 
with Nicholson and Vetch.'* But from the beginning no 
eagerness was shown. Not only was the distrust of the 
executive apparent, but the Quakers were in conscience 
bound to oppose any military measures, although the 
sequel seems to show that they did not wish now to 
incur the blame for the failure of the required bills. 

First, reasons were presented why New Jersey's quota 
should be reduced, but Nicholson and Vetch answered 
that they had no power to admit a reduction. "♦ Then the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. z;i7. ^Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 32g. 
^ Assembly Journal , May 27 and 28, 1709. *Ibid., May 30, 1709. 



402 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

house took up the question as to whether " men be 
detached," that is, whether mihtia be sent by the prov- 
ince. The vote at first stood even. But upon the sec- 
ond vote the motion was squarely defeated.' New Jersey, 
therefore, would support the expedition only by volun- 
tary enlistments. The house, however, in committee of 
the whole decided to raise £3,000 for the support of 
their troops, and proceeded to elaborate a bill for the 
purpose.' 

But Ingoldsby and his council would not let the chance 
slip of involving the Quakers in difficulty, nor was the 
house inclined to pass any opportunity of attacking the 
lieutenant-governor. The council proceeded to pass and 
send down an address of thanks to the Crown ^ and a 
little later another praying Nicholson to take command 
of the forces raised.'* The latter was promptly accepted 
by the house, though with the proviso that it should be 
understood as applying only to those who voluntarily 
enlisted, and sent back to the council signed by the 
speaker.'^ But the council, seeing its advantage, returned 
it with the request that all the representatives subscribe 
it, as was done in other colonies. Such members of the 
house " as pleased " then signed. ^ In similar manner the 
house agreed to the address to the Crown and sent it up 
signed by the speaker.^ But the council again took ex- 
ception to this mode which allowed the Quakers to 
escape responsibility, and sent back a new copy of the 
address. 3 The house, thereupon, drew up an address of 
its own to the queen which it ordered signed by the 
speaker alone. ^ But Thomas Gardiner in behalf of him- 

^ Assembly Journal, May 31, 1709. ''/did., June i, 1709. 

^ New Jetsey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 355. 

^Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 352. ^ Assembly Journal, June 3, 1709. 

^Ibid., June 4, 1709. "^ Ibid., June 9 and 10, 1709. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 403 

self and the other Friends boldly accepted the challenge 
and caused entry to be made that, though the Quakers 
were always willing to support the government, they were 
in conscience bound to oppose raising money for soldiers.' 
Meanwhile the assembly passed a bill to prevent prose- 
cutions by information.' It also undertook to amend 
the militia act.^ On the other hand, the house rejected 
point-blank a bill sent down by the council for preventing 
persons from leaving the province to escape service on 
the expedition.^ The council replied by rejecting the 
bill preventing informations.^ 

On June 10, 1709, the bill for raising £3,000 for the 
expedition came to its final consideration in the assem- 
bly. In spite of the formal opposition of the Quakers 
its passage was assured. But it certainly appears that 
in spite of their feigned eagerness the supporters of the 
lieutenant-governor were really disappointed that they 
could not make profit by casting upon the Friends the 
blame for the failure of the measure. They endeavored 
to gain their end by a ruse. Elisha Lawrence and 
Gershom Mott of Monmouth, both of whom, as being 
opposed to the proprietary interests, were supporters of 
Ingoldsby, and had voted all along for the bill, now 
suddenly cast their votes against it upon the final ques- 
tion. These two negatives, with the votes of the Quakers, 
made a majority against it, and it was thus defeated to 
the dismay of all.^ 

The council at once named a committee to examine 

^ Assembly Journal. Tune 10, 1709. -Ibid., June 7, 1709. 

^ Ibid., June 4, 1709. ^ Ibid., June 3, 1709. 

"New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 359. 

^Assembly Journal, June 10 and 13, 1709; New Jersey Archives, vol. 
iii. p 467. 



404 T^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the books of the house with a view to finding evidences 
of guilt/ But the assembly promptly answered the 
attack by naming a committee to inspect the council 
journal.^ This step confused the council. They made 
answer that the house had made no mention of the lieu- 
tenant-governor without whom they could not act. 
Further they presumed that the deliberations of the 
council were secret. Still, if proper applications were 
made, they would show all minutes referring to the 
house.' The house replied that they conceived that such 
minutes were kept in a separate book and prayed that 
they might examine such records.^ But though a time 
was set for the examination, the clerk of the council did 
not appear with his minutes,'' and further action was 
prevented by the adjournment. Meanwhile, the council 
committee had gone through the journal of the house 
and carefully copied such entries as they believed would 
serve their designs. ^ 

Ingoldsby called the representatives before him on 
June 13th and adjourned the assembly until July 28th. 
He had expected ready compliance, but instead they had 
trifled away their time and done nothing.^ Immediately 
after the adjournment the lieutenant-governor and his 
confederates drew up an address to the queen, violently 
attacking the Quakers and heaping upon them the blame 
for the failure of the province to comply with the Crown's 
commands. The only remedy was to exclude them from 
office.^ 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 360. 

''^ Assembly Jozirnal, June 11, 1709. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 361. 

* Assembly Journal, June 13, 1709. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 362. ^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 363. 

''Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 365. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



405 



But the further prosecution of the schemes of the anti- 
proprietary faction were foiled by Nicholson and Vetch, 
who were unwilling to see their expedition crippled to 
gratify party ends. Apparently assurance was given them 
that the assembly would pass the required act. At any 
rate, upon the solicitation of the officers, Ingoldsby sum- 
moned the legislature by proclamation, and it met again 
June 23d. 

With the utmost promptness the house passed a bill 
for raising £3,000,' another to encourage volunteers.'' 
and a third for enforcing the currency of £3.000 in bills 
of credit.' The first of these appears to have had a 
narrow escape, however, from the fate which it met the 
previous session, being carried, after a tie vote, by the 
ballot of Hugh Middleton. "one reputed a Quaker." 
who saw how affairs stood, and was unwilling to be made 
a political tool because of his religious belief.'' 

The council speedily passed unchanged the bill to 
encourage volunteers."* The other two acts, however, 
it insisted upon amending. Some of these amendments 
were readily accepted by the house, but upon one point 
a direct conflict ensued.' In the acts sent up the words 
" general assembly " were used referring to the house 
alone. The council claimed that they should apply only 
to the governor, council and assembly acting together, 
and based their contention upon the governor's commis- 
sion and instructions, as well as upon former practice. ^ 
But the house held resolutely to its position, and gave 
the council plainly to understand that it must either yield 
the point or incur the responsibility for the failure of the 

^ Assembly Journal, June 29, 1709. ^Ibid., June 28, 1709. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 36. ^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 374. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 378. 



4o6 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



measures. This the council was unwilling to assume arid 
it accordingly gave way, though with very bad grace.' 
The three bills were thus passed and assented to by 
Ingoldsby, after which the assembly was adjourned. 
The house had won a substantial victory, and the plans 
of the lieutenant-governor had been sharply checked. 

During the session thus ended there had been several 
other points of conflict between the executive and legis- 
lative. Owing to the shortness of the proceedings, 
however, these had come to no direct issue. The session 
had hardly opened when Lawrence and Mott requested 
that as a justification they be allowed to enter upon 
the journal of the house their reasons for voting against 
the bill for raising £3,000. The request was refused,'' 
whereupon they applied to the council and were allowed 
to state their reasons upon the council journal. Here 
they protest against the entry upon the journal of the 
house, of the fact that they had voted against the meas- 
ure, as unprecedented, and state that they did so, not 
because they were unwilling to obey the queen's orders, 
but because they thought that many parts of the bill were 
ill advised, as, for example, that which made the quota 
consist entirely of volunteers and did not provide for a 
detachment in case the number fell short. They thus 
tried to make it appear that the measure was not strict 
enough to suit them.^ 

Meanwhile the house had called Secretary Basse before 
it and asked whether Miles Forster had given security as 
treasurer for the last tax. Basse replied that he did not 
know and that he regarded it only as his business to file 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 379. 

"- Assembly Journal, June 24, 1709. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 381. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



407 



the bond when it was sent him. The house thereupon 
named a committee to see that Forster gave bond.' 
Next the assembly named a committee to inquire what 
had been done with two bills sent up last session, that re- 
garding informations and a measure concerning the pay- 
ment of old debts.' The latter bill was considered and 
finally passed by the council, but with amendment which 
the house would not accept.^ Adjournment, however, 
prevented further discussion. Some consideration was 
also given by the house to a petition from one Peter 
Blacksfield, praying relief from a judgment against him 
for a supposed breach of his recognizance. But this 
matter was soon postponed till next session. ^ The 
urgency of the occasion, therefore, prevented for the time 
being the wrangle and conflict which under the existing 
state of feeling was likely to come between Ingoldsby and 
his opponents. When the assembly met again in Novem- 
ber, 1709, at Burlington, however, the field was clear. 

This was a new assembly, for another election had 
been held during the interval, and the result undoubtedly 
changed the feelings of the house toward the executive. 
The majority of the fifth assembly were by no means 
zealous in the interest of the proprietors, and, though 
ready to oppose the council in defence of their rights as 
a house, passed several measures in the interest of In- 
goldsby and Coxe. An important part of the work of 
the session was the passage, after much discussion, of an 

^ Assembly Journal, June 26, 1709. ^Ibid., June 29, 1709. 

^ Ibid., June 28 and 29, 1709. Blacksfield had given security for the 
appearance of William Slooby, of Salem Co., who had been held for 
trial before the Supreme Court for piracy. The non-appearance of 
Slooby in November Term, 1705, led to the judgment against Blacks- 
field who was thereby ruined. According to Hunter, the judgment was 
notoriously unjust. 



4o8 '^HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

act for explaining the act of support which had been 
passed under Lovelace.' This measure, regarded by 
Hunter as infamous, gave f6oo of the fSoo granted 
Lovelace to Ingoldsby, leaving only £200 to Lady Love- 
lace.^ 

But none the less grounds of disagreement were not 
lacking. The house prepared two bills confirming the 
rights of the proprietors of East and West Jersey re- 
spectively. But the latter was defeated in the council 
without being committed,^ and the former met an even 
more untimely fate. The house committee to which it 
was intrusted contained an anti-proprietary majority in- 
cluding Lawrence and Mott. This committee deliber- 
ately blotted out the entire bill except the title, even 
using force against its chairman, Thomas Gordon, who, 
of course, objected.'* For this conduct Lawrence and 
Mott were forced to ask forgiveness at the bar of the 
house. Nevertheless it was voted not to bring in an- 
other similar bill that session. ^ The Blacksfield petition 
was also investigated by the assembly, and as a result a 
bill was passed annulling the decision and judgment of 
the case. This bill, however, was immediately rejected 
by the council.^ 

The curious conflict about the title " general assem- 
bly" was renewed. In spite of the precedent of the 
fourth assembly the council amended bills sent to it by 
striking out the word "general" when referring to the 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 14. lyogetseq. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 57-8. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 400. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 2, 1709-10. "Ibid., Jan. 3, 1709-10. 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 397. The judgment against 
Blacksfield was eventually quashed by the council under Hunter on pro- 
ceedings in error. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 409 

house alone.' But when the house made an issue of the 
matter, the council was obliged to recede.'' Thus the 
point gained by the last house was not lost. 

Another disagreement took place upon a bill regulat- 
ing court fees, in which the council undertook among 
other changes to raise the fees which had been agreed 
upon in the house.'' After conference no agreement 
could be reached, and the bill was lost.* There were 
also disagreements upon other measures, notably upon 
that preventing prosecutions upon informations and that 
for regulating representatives' fees, but the latter bill was 
finally passed. 

The most important work of the session, however, was 
the investigation of the expedition to Canada and of the 
questions arising out of the issue of bills of credit which 
it had entailed. This was carried on by the committee 
of the whole house, assisted by a committee of the 
council named by Ingoldsby.^ Thomas Pike, Capt. 
Farmar, John Royse and Elisha Parker, or any three of 
them, had been appointed to sign the bills of credit. But 
Royse had died before any were issued. The three re- 
maining commissioners had then, without authority, as- 
sociated Adam Hude with themselves to sign the bills. 
Hude had signed some of the bills with his three col- 
leagues, but more with only two. There was also some 
difference between the form of the bills issued and that 
which had been recjuired by the act.^ 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 406; Assembly Jourval, Jan. 16 
and 17, 1709-10. 
"•Ibid., Jan. 21, 1709-10. 

^Ibid., Jan. 17, 1709-10; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 409. 
^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 17 and 30, 1709-10. 

^ Ibid., Dec. 9and 2},, ijoget seq.; New Jersey Archives, \o\. xiii, p. 391. 
^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 414. 



410 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

To remedy these defects, John Harrison brought a 
bill in the house for amending and explaining the act for 
the currency of the bills of credit.' After some change 
it was passed by the assembly.'' But the council 
instead of passing it took the opportunity of attacking 
the persons concerned in the Canada expedition who 
were adherents of " the country party." After receiving 
the report of the select committee which had investigated 
the expedition with the committee of the house, it passed 
a series of resolutions.^ These declared that Pike, Parker, 
Farmar and Hude had all acted criminally. All bills 
signed only by Hude and two persons were declared 
void, and the conduct of the signers an encouragement 
to counterfeiting. Farmar and Parker, the commis- 
sioners for managing the expedition, were also declared 
to have betrayed their trust, as had John Harrison, the 
commissary. Basse, who with Gordon had gone over 
the accounts, was publicly thanked. 

Meanwhile the house had passed a bill for punishing 
deserters during the late expedition. Sonmans in the 
council promptly moved that it be amended so as to 
compel Farmar, Parker, Hude and Harrison to restore 
the moneys of which they had cheated the province.'^ 
But no action in this matter was pushed home, owing to 
the opposition of the house. Soon after the council 
received a delegation of merchants including Peter Fau- 
connier, who represented the trouble and loss caused by 
the fact that the bills of credit had not been properly 
signed, a fact which had caused them to lose credit. 
They stated that the merchants had resolved not to take 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. ii, 1709-10. '^Ibid., Jan. 16, 1709-10. 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 416. 
'•Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 420. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



411 



any more of them." The council, however, had already 
sent down an act for calling in and declaring void the 
old bills and enforcing the currency of new,'' but the 
house threw this out absolutely.^ 

The council now at length took up the house bill, 
amending that for the issue of the original bills of credit 
and passed it with amendments/ The delegation of 
merchants had meanwhile addressed themselves to the 
house, and in a memorial prayed that the house would 
not confirm the present bills of credit, but that they 
might be heard on the same.^ Another petition was also 
presented from Trent, Glenncross. Wilson and other 
traders of New York and Philadelphia desiring to be 
heard against the bill enforcing the currency of the money 
lately issued. A hearing was promptly given to the 
latter parties.^ The house then accepted the council 
changes in the bill for amending the act for the currency 
of the bills of credit.^ But the session came to an end 
without its receiving the assent of the governor. 

Meanwhile the house had ordered the secretary to lay 
before it all papers and acts connected with the Canada 
expedition, and had been informed by Basse that the 
documents were under consideration by the council.' 
But Ingoldsby, secure in having his own needs provided 
for, now decided to end the session, already the longest 
yet held, by an adjournment till March lyxh} 

When the legislature met again it found a new policy 
to be dealt with and a new executive behind it, in the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 421. ^ Ibid., vol. iii. p. 420. 

^' Assembly Journal. Jan. 26, 1709-10. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 422. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 27, 1709-10. ''Ibid., Jan. 28, 1709-10. 

''Ibid., Jan. 30, 1709-10. ^ Ibid., Jan. 31, 1709-10. 



412 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

person of Governor Robert Hunter, the ablest statesman 
whom the colonial history of New Jersey presents. Gov- 
ernor Hunter opened the first session of the sixth assem- 
bly by a businesslike statement in which he simply said 
that as long as the unhappy divisions of the province 
continued there was little hope of successful work. He 
therefore urged that they leave disputes of property to 
the laws, and join in agreement like good subjects. All 
owned the need of supporting the government. Several 
other matters needing attention he would bring forward 
directly. In addition he would concur in all that was 
advantageous.' A little later he laid before the house 
several articles of his instructions requiring legislation, 
as well as a letter from the Queen in favor of Lady Love- 
lace.^ As for the rest Hunter kept himself carefully in 
the background and waited the result of the deliberations, 
meanwhile following keenly the conduct of both council 
and assembly. 

The house after repljang courteously^ proceeded to 
work in good spirit. It recalled from the council the 
engrossed bills which had been sent up during the re- 
cent sessions'* and not passed, and after reconsideration, 
sent a number of them up again. Among these were 
the bill for preventing prosecutions by information,^ 
and the bill for the amending the act for the currency of 
£3,000 bills of credit^ which had so nearly become 
law at the last meeting. The house then went on to 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 426. 

"^Assembly Journal, Dec. 19, 1710. The letter ur^ed the payment to 
Lady Lovelace of the £^00 previously voted to her husband. 
^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiii, p. 428. 
'^ Assembly Journal , Dec. 12 and 13. 1710. 
^Ibid., Dec. 21, 1710. ^Ibid., Dec. 22. 1710. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



413 



further legislation, in part at least upon lines suggested 
by the governor. In all it elaborated nineteen measures, 
nearly all of which were regarded by Hunter as proper 
and useful.' They included a bill for regulating elections, 
which was directly required by Hunter's instructions, a 
bill relieving those injured by the militia act, and a bill 
regulating the qualifications of jurors which would have 
enabled Quakers to serve. The house, however, regarded 
it as useless to attempt a bill confirming the rights of 
the proprietors until the membership of the council 
was changed. The bill appropriating £944 for the 
support of the government for two years was prepared 
in a new and businesslike manner, creditable both to the 
assembly and to Hunter. Upon taking up the question, 
the house asked the governor what he would regard as 
a reasonable support for one year.'' In reply Hunter 
submitted an account of the charges of the government,^ 
and the bill appears to have been framed on the informa- 
tion given. It was satisfactory to Hunter for the time 
being, though he advised the Board of Trade that he 
hoped in due time to secure a more proper sum."* 

But far different was the conduct of the council, con- 
trolled as it was by the old supporters of Cornbury and 
Ingoldsby, — Pinhorne, Coxe, William Hall, and the med- 
dlesome Sonmans. These men soon made it apparent 
that their aim was to thwart the assembly and to cause 
all the trouble possible to the supporters of the proprie- 
tors and the Quakers. They proceeded to reject all the 
bills except five, chiefly upon hasty and insufficient pre- 
texts which left bare their real motive. Most of the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 51 et seq.; p. 118 et seq. 

" Assembly Journal, Dec. 21, 1710. ^ Ibid., Dec, 23, 1710. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 64. 



414 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

bills were simply rejected upon second reading, but when 
the subject matter was so important that the bills had to 
be committed, they were so clogged with amendments 
that certain defeat followed.' The result, of course, was 
the failure of all the objects of the session. Even the 
tactful remonstrance of Hunter could not dissuade the 
council from its course.^ Only three of the many im- 
portant bills were saved : the act of support, the act 
amending the act for the currency of the bills of credit, 
and the act reviving the militia act.^ These even Coxe 
and Sonmans dared not defeat. 

While this conflict was taking place, several other col- 
lisions between the houses occurred. After several bills 
had been sent up by the house to the council the former 
body named a committee to inspect the council minutes 
to see what action had been taken. They were to get a 
copy of the minutes signed by the clerk and lay it before 
the house. ■♦ But the clerk of the council refused to show 
the minutes or to give a copy without order from the 
council. 5 The house then addressed Hunter relative to 
the refusal, and the governor at once directed Basse to 
lay before the house copies of the minutes.^ Hunter 
further ordered that in future the minutes of the council 
relative to the passing of bills should be kept in a sepa- 
rate book to which the house might have recourse at any 
time. But as to former minutes the house must apply 
to the governor as they were intermixed with other 
matters.' 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 51 et seq.; vol. xiii, p. 434 et seq. 

''■Ibid., vol. iv, p. 54. 

'^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 10, 1710-11. 

^ Ibid., Dec. 28, 1710. ^Ibid., Dec. 29, 1710. 

^Ibid., Dec. 30, 1710. "^ Ibid., Jan. i, 1710-11. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



415 



This substantial victory as well as the substitution by 
Hunter of William Bradford for Capt. Pinhorne as clerk 
of the assembly encouraged the representatives.' They 
now asked Hunter for a " perusal " of the council minutes 
relative to the Canada expedition and also for a copy of 
the address to the Crown sent by the council in In- 
goldsby's time/ As to the latter, however, the secre- 
tary reported that though he had been ordered to show 
minutes regarding bills, the council would not consent 
that the address be shown.^ As to the records of the 
Canada expedition, Basse stated that he could not deliver 
certain of the papers without direct orders of the council 
to that effect/ The house, however, might have copies. ^ 
The house, therefore, resolved that the secretary's action 
had disabled it from proceeding upon the country's busi- 
ness and proceeded to address the governor against 
Basse.* The address declared that the house believed 
that Basse falsified when he said he had orders from the 
council not to show the documents, and that it was in- 
tolerable that the representative body should be insulted 
by one whose crimes and misdemeanors deserved public 
censure. 

A few days later a message was received from the 
council through Basse in person in which it was desired 
that the house particularize as to which papers relating 
to the Canada expedition they wished to examine. The 
house after inspecting its journal replied that they desired 
to see all the papers which had originally been laid be- 
fore the committee of the two houses and which, when 
they had applied to Ingoldsby in January, 1709, he had 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. i. 1710-11. 

"^Ibid., Jan. 2, 1710-11. '^ Ibid., Jan. 3. 1710-11. 

*Ibid., Jan. 8, 1710-11. ^Ibid., Jan. 11, 1710-11. 

^ Ibid.; New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 73. 



4i6 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



informed them were then under consideration before the 
council. This answer was conveyed to the council by a 
committee which further informed that body that the right 
of the house to all the papers was indisputable.' Soon after 
the house was informed that the council had named Coxe 
and Gordon as a committee to examine which of the papers 
need be copied. These copies were to be for the use of 
the council and the originals would be laid before the 
house in a few hours. ^ Next da}'^ Basse handed over the 
documents. 3 He refused, however, to let the house see 
the reasons entered by Lawrence and Mott upon the 
council journal for their voting against the appropriation 
of the moneys for the expedition. "* But the house as 
usual applied to Hunter who promptly sent them a copy 
of the entry. 5 The representatives upon consideration 
of their conduct censured Lawrence and Mott, and 
when the latter after some hesitation refused to admit 
his fault, he was expelled." 

Meanwhile the house had obtained from Capt. Pin- 
horne, its former clerk, a copy of the address sent by 
Ingoldsby and the council to the Crown in Cornbury's 
time which had been furnished by Lord Lovelace. After 
examining this worthy document the assembly voted to 
address the Queen in defense of itself and former assem- 
blies ; ^ it declared all signers of the scandalous paper 
unworthy to be members of the house, and forthwith 
expelled William Sandford, a former councilor, then 
serving as member from Bergen.^ When Sandford and 

^Assembly Journal, Jan. 12 and 13, 1710-11. 
-Ibid., Jan. 15, 1710-11. '^ Ibid., Jan. 16, 1710-11. 

*Ibid., Jan. 15, 1710-11. ^Ibid., Jan. 17, 1710-11. 

^Ibid., Jan. 19, 1710-11. ''Ibid., Jan. 17, 1710-11. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 22. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



417 



Mott were re-elected they were declared incapable of 
sitting. In a lengthy and able representation to the 
governor the assembly not only answered the charges 
made in the council's address, but thoroughly exposed 
the abuses of the recent administrations. This document 
undoubtedly made a great impression upon Hunter.' 

Meanwhile the house had obtained from Hunter a 
sight of the bond of the former receiver-general, Faucon- 
nier,* and a committee examined his accounts. ^ These 
were discovered to be faulty in several respects, and the 
governor was addressed for relief. "♦ 

During the latter part of the session the house was 
occupied in investigating charges brought against 
William Hall and Basse for improper use of their powers, 
especially during certain recent court proceedings. 
Hall was accused of abusing his power as justice at 
Salem by illegally imprisoning and coercing one Gotbolt 
and his wife. Basse was charged with numerous misde- 
meanors, especially in the proceedings against Thomas 
Gordon during Cornbury's time. The attack upon the 
secretary was based partly upon charges brought in the 
assembly by George Willocks, the old foe of the clique 
to which Basse belonged. Sonmans and Pinhorne were 
also involved. The assembly finally presented addresses 
against both the secretary ^ and Hall.^ When at length 
Hunter, on Feb. 10, 1710-11, adjourned the assembly, 
the feeling between the two houses had become so bitter 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 24 et seq. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 8, 1710-11. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, p. 350. 

* Assembly Journal, Jan. 25, Feb. 2, 1710-11. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 71, 87. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 79. 



4i8 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



that hot words and personaHties were uttered even dur- 
ing conferences.' 

But although the first session of the sixth assembly 
thus ended in disagreement and failure, it brought with 
it most important results. Hunter now saw exactly 
where the difficulty lay. He recognized the impos- 
sibility of carrying on legislation successfully with hostile 
majorities in the two houses of legislature, and he was 
convinced that the proprietary party in control of the 
lower house represented the true sentiments of the 
province.' Upon this opinion he based his future 
course. That he, a shrewd and upright outsider, should 
come to such a conclusion is one of the strongest argu- 
ments in favor of the ''Country Party." Whatever our 
sympathy for the original settlers of Elizabethtown, it 
seems certain that Sonmans, Hall, Pinhorne, and their 
followers now constituted a corrupt clique of office 
holders. The argument that Hunter as a Scotchman 
was naturally favorable to his fellow Scots, the leading 
proprietors, is counterbalanced by the fact that the 
leaders of the council made great parade of churchman- 
ship while among their opponents were many dissenters 
and Quakers. Hunter though tolerant was himself a 
good churchman. 

Immediately upon the close of the session Hunter 
wrote fully to the Lords of Trade stating exactly what 
had occurred and casting all the blame upon the council. 
He declared that nothing could be accomplished while 
Pinhorne, Sonmans, Coxe and Hall held their positions 
and accordingly recommended strongly that they be re- 
moved from the council at once and their places be sup- 
plied by men of the opposing interest.^ From this time 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 9, 1710 11. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 59 et seq. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



419 



on the governor undoubtedly had a full understanding- 
with Morris and the assembly leaders, for they acquiesced 
in his policy of making no further efforts at serious 
legislation until the cumbersome machinery across the 
water should bring about the required changes. If it 
had not not been for the circumstances of the war with 
France, which it must be remembered was all this time 
going on, it is probable that Hunter would not even 
have summoned another session of the assembly until 
this had been accomplished. 

As it was, however, a brief session was held at Perth 
Amboy in July 1711 for the purpose of providing New 
Jersey's quota for the Walker expedition.' The session 
was harmonious as the council dared not seem to oppose 
the wishes of the Crown, and the assembly acted with 
dispatch. There was no attempt at general legislation 
and immediately upon the passage of bills for the raising 
of 12,500 ounces of plate in the form of bills of credit 
and for encouraging volunteers to go upon the expedi- 
iton to Canada, Hunter adjourned the assembly.' 

A further interval followed during which Hunter again 
applied to the home government urging action,^ and at 
length his advice, supported by the efforts of the West 
Jersey Society,"* prevailed. On August 27, 1712, the 
Lords of Trade recommended to the Queen that Pin- 
horne, Coxe, Sonmans, and Hall be removed from the 
council and Anderson, William Morris, John Hamilton, 
and Reading be named in their places. Elisha Parker 
and Thomas Byerly were recommended for vacancies. 
All of these appointments were duly approved by Queen 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 476. 

"^ Assembly Journal, July 16, 171 1; New Jersey Archives , vol. iv, p. 137. 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 149, 151. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 115, 140, 152. 



420 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



Anne in June 1713 except that of William Morris, who 
had died/ But this victory was not won without op- 
position as William Dockwra, the old ally of Sonmans 
and Coxe, and certain of the Anglican clergy in the 
province had used every effort to prevent it/ 

Hunter was now secure in the support and sympathy 
of a majority in both houses, and on Dec. 8, 171 3, once 
more met the assembly at Burlington, The session be- 
gan with every indication of harmony and satisfaction. 
Hunter in his speech expressed his pleasure at meeting 
the assembly again and said he believed they would be 
glad to see him "in such good company." He congrat- 
ulated them on the peace which the Queen had given 
them and thought that, as the majority of the council 
now held views in agreement with their own, it would 
be well for the houses to hold frequent conferences. As 
to matters of legislation he reminded them of the neces- 
sity of supporting the government. He thought the 
time had come to confirm the rights of the proprietors 
and to reconsider some of the recent bills which the 
council had spoiled. Several other matters of local con- 
cern were also suggested. ^ The assembly replied in an 
equally pleasant spirit. '• They congratulated Hunter on 
being in such good company, expressed their obligation 
to the Queen, and hoped they would show that they 
were not ungrateful. 

The session thus begun fulfilled in every respect its 
early promise. From December 8th to March 17th, the 
houses remained steadily at work and carried to com- 
pletion more than thirty bills, many of them dealing with 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iv, pp. 168, 169. 

^Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 116, 153. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 484. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, p. 486. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



421 



important subjects. During all the work the council 
and assembly cooperated heartily. Numerous confer- 
ences were held to the satisfaction of both bodies, and 
though there were some few differences of opinion, no 
conflict whatever took place. The statesmanship of 
Hunter had accomplished its result. 

Though numerous of the measures passed were of 
account, a discussion of the strictly legislative work of 
the session does not belong under our present topic. 
Most of the acts will be considered elsewhere. It is to 
be noted here, however, that the victorious party carried 
through triumphantly many of the bills which had been 
subjects of conflict between the assembly and the late 
majority in the council. Among these were a bill for 
preventing malicious informations, a bill for the Quakers, 
giving validity to their declarations, and thus enabling 
them to hold all offices of trust, and a bill for preventing 
corruption of the courts.' It is interesting to notice 
that though a bill for confirming the rights of the pro- 
prietors of West Jersey was considered,"^ it was not 
passed in time for acceptance by the governor. 

The house exercised and thus confirmed its right to 
inspect the accounts of all the provincial officers. Not 
only were the accounts of Thomas Gordon, receiver- 
general and " treasurer " of the province, considered,^ 
but also the accounts of the treasurers of the recent ex- 
peditions against Canada, Gordon for East Jersey, and 
Thomas Gardiner and Dr. John Robert for the western 
division.^ The assembly also appointed committees to 

^ Assembly Journal, March ii, 1713-14. -Ibid., Feb. 19, 1713-4. 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 185; Assembly Journal, Jan. 23, 
1713 4. 

^ Ibid., Jan. 22, 2},, Feb. 6, 1713-14; liber AAA of Commissions, pp. 
134. 147- 



^22 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

examine the statements of the collectors of the taxes for 
the recent Canada expedition in the several counties.' 

The matter of the support of the government and the 
payment of the arrears since the last act was adjusted 
without dispute. Gordon's accounts showed that he had 
in hand £1,162 los. 3d., and this sum was appropriated 
to pay the arrearages from June 1712, to Sept. 1713. 
Hunter was to have £500 a year salary and £100 for ex- 
penses.'' An additional act of support gave £2,550 for 
the payment of expenses for two years. ^ These bills 
though approved without comment by Hunter were re- 
garded by him as being too small in amount. 

Throughout the session Hunter kept himself in the 
background and made no effort to interfere in the de- 
liberations. The journal of the representatives scarcely 
mentions him except when he formally accepts the 
measures at the end of the session. 

But the victory of Hunter and the proprietary party 
was not a final one. The death of the Queen and the 
accession of George I put an end to the sixth assembly 
which had served so well the purposes of the governor, 
while it made it necessary for Hunter, himself, to obtain 
a new commission. Dr. Daniel Coxe, the former pro- 
prietor of West Jersey endeavored in the interests of his 
son to prevent his reappointment "* and in attacking 
Hunter he was joined by the resentful Cornbury, now 
Earl of Clarendon. 5 The effort to overthrow Hunter in 
England failed, however, as a new commission was 
promptly given.^ The issue of this patent put an end to 
a newly elected assembly before it had met. ^ 

^Assembly Journal, Feb. i, 2 and 4, I7ic-i4- 

""Ibid., Jan. 23, Feb. 26, 1713-14. ^Ibid., Feb. 17, March 17, I7i3> 
*N£ZV Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 198, 203. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 199. 
^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 202. "^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 7. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



423 



Meanwhile the elements of opposition in New Jersey 
itself were being reorganized. The leaders were now 
more especially Col. Coxe and Basse, who had been super- 
seded as provincial secretary by James Smith.' But they 
found allies in the Rev. Mr. Talbot and other high 
churchmen who regarded Hunter's removal of Coxe and 
his fellow council members as an attack upon Angli- 
canism in the interest of Quakers and dissenters. The 
strength of the opposition lay in the western division, in 
Salem, Gloucester, and Cape May, a fact rather remark- 
able as East Jersey had always been the center of anti- 
proprietary feeling. 

When the new elections were held, Coxe and his 
supporters were successful to such an extent that Hun- 
ter evidently feared being confronted by a hostile assem- 
bly.^ He called a session for December, 171 5, at Bur- 
lington, but the representatives were slow in appearing, 
and Hunter after consultation with his council declared 
the assembly dissolved before it had actually organized, 
and ordered a new election. The reason assigned was 
that several of the members chosen were "notorious 
persons." 3 But the result was hardly more satisfactory 
to the executive as Coxe and William Hall were again 
returned and controlled a majority of the lower house. 

Hunter at length summoned the assembly at Amboy 
on April 4, 17 16, and the house at once chose Coxe 
speaker, an act in itself a declaration of war.* The gov- 
ernor's opening speech was certainly not calculated to 
pacify his opponents. ^ He said that the delay in calling 

^ New Jersey Assembly, vol. xiv, p. 2. "^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 210. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 4-6. 
^Assembly Journal, April 4, 1716. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 7. 



424 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the assembly was due to the recent long session at New 
York and his necessary presence on the frontier. De- 
spite the insinuations of two persons at home who pre- 
tended to have been instructed from this side, he defied the 
most malicious to name an instance where he had not 
acted for the good of the country. As to the work of 
the session, the last assembly had passed so many good 
laws that what was left could not take much time. It 
was necessary of course to support the government. 
After a forceful reference to the defeat of the "hellish 
designs '" of the Pretender, he concluded by promising 
to concur in all good action. 

The house at once made application to Hunter for his 
instructions relative to the sitting of the assembly at 
Perth Amboy.' The governor then promply submitted 
article twenty-five of the instructions, which ordered 
that the assembly sit alternately at Perth Amboy and 
Burlington, " or otherwise as you with the advice of our 
aforesaid council shall think fit in case of extraordinary 
necessity to ap't them."^ But the assembly nevertheless 
drew up an address demanding to be adjourned to Bur- 
lington, on the ground that the act of Ingoldsby's time 
regulating the place of the sitting of representatives, one 
of the few provincial laws which had been confirmed by 
the Crown, required that all sessions be held at that 
town. 3 

Hunter had expected such an attack, for he had con- 
sulted his council relative to his powers previous to the 
session. ■♦ In replying to the assembly he took the 
ground that the power to call sessions was a part of the 

"^ Assembly Journal, April 5, 1716. 

"^Ibid., April -6, 1716. ^ Ibid., April 7, 1716. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 6. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT .-2$ 

prerogative of the Crown, and that the action of the late 
Queen could not be binding upon her successor. The 
act in question would have to be confirmed by King 
George before it would be again in force. He had rea- 
sons of great weight wdiy the session should be at Am- 
boy.' The executive was so careful in this matter that 
upon examining the assembly journal he objected to the 
entry of his reply, thinking with apparent reason that 
there had been an attempt to misrepresent wdiat he said."" 
He therefore sent his answer in writing and caused it to 
be entered.^ Immediately afterward the speaker " re- 
turned," and requested Hunter to repeat what he had 
originally said, "for the sake of his memory." Hunter 
did so, and this second statement also was entered. The 
governor now charged the assembly with endeavoring to 
usurp the executive powers of the government, when 
as a fact they had " but a third share in the legislative."^ 
After this skirmish the house proceeded to business, 
drawing up several bills and undertaking to examine the 
accounts of Thomas Gordon, the receiver-general and 
treasurer, and of all those concerned in the expeditions 
to Canada and the issuing of the bills of credit. ' The 
majority as usual endeavored to make their opponents 
feel their power. William Harrison, the sheriff of Glou- 
cester, after an examination, was ordered to receive a 
reprimand for holding an improper election.^ The quali- 
fications of Capt. Farmar, always a supporter of the 
governor, w^ere challenged, and he was apparently about 
to be disqualified.^ A rather interesting point was raised 
by the election of William Clews as member from Salem 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. lo. 

"^ Assembly Journal , April 7, 1716. '^Ibid., April 9, 1716. 

* Ibid., April 9, 1716. ^ Ibid., April 11, 12 and 13, 1716. 

^Ibid., April 28, 1716. "^ Ibid., April 25, 1716. 



426 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



county. He refused to take the qualifying oath, and as 
Hunter did not regard him as either a Quaker or a 
reputed Quaker he refused to let him affirm, as the ben- 
efit of the act giving validity to affirmations was confined 
to the Friends.' But v^hen the house informed the gov- 
ernor that Clews was reputed a Quaker he promptly 
qualified him.' A bill was brought in relating to land 
records in East Jersey, and on April 26th the house 
resolved that the proclamations dissolving the last three 
assemblies and such other papers as the house judged 
necessary be laid before it.^ Before any open conflict 
took place, however, Hunter prorogued the assembly 
till May 7th. 

The results of the prorogation were far-reaching, and 
if they were foreseen by Hunter he exercised great polit- 
ical shrewdness in taking the step. When May 7th 
arrived he continued the adjournment till May 14th, and 
on that day only nine members appeared. ^ All the lead- 
ing opponents of the government including the speaker, 
Coxe, Hall, Clews, and Spicer had purposely absented 
themselves. But if their design was, as seems probable, 
to baffie the executive in this way they were wofully at 
fault. Their absence gave the proprietary supporters 
the very opportunity which they sought. On the 19th 
the members who were present addressed Hunter pray- 
ing him to take such measures as would secure the 
attendance of the absentees. He accordingly sent war- 
rants to "several absentees" commanding their attend- 
ance, and four obeyed.'* Hunter then sent for the 
members and recommended them to meet and choose a 
speaker "in order to enable themselves to send their 

^ Assembly Journal, April 25, 1716. -Ibid., Apr. 26, 1716. 

^Ibid., May 14, 1716. ^ Ibid.. May 19, 1716. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 427 

sergeant-at-arms for the absentees." ' On the 20th, 
a majority being present, they accordingly met and 
chose John Kinsey speaker. This selection of course 
meant that the supporters of Hunter were in control of 
the house. ^ 

Hunter in his speech expressed his hearty approval of 
the choice the assembly had made. He hoped that the 
conduct of the late speaker would open the eyes of all 
such as had been imposed upon by him. As to recom- 
mendations, he referred to his speech at the last session, 
but as harvest was drawing near he hardly thought they 
could do more than the most necessary things like pro- 
viding for the support of the public credit. They knew 
that the time of expiration of their bills was approaching, 
and something must be done to prevent confusion in the 
currency.^ 

But though the house appears to have worked indus- 
triously it did not accomplish much in the way of legis- 
lation. On June first it asked the governor for an ad- 
journment if it were in any way possible until the latter 
part of September, as corn harvest was at hand, and then 
hay harvest and seed time would demand the attention 
of the members. Hunter at once consented, adjourning 
them until October third. Only one bill, that to enforce 
the payment of all public taxes, was completed and ac- 
cepted. ^ 

But during the month important political changes had 
already been accomplished. The house, after voting that 
Coxe's absence was a breach of trust, expelled him.* 
The other absentees were ordered to repair at once to the 
house and each was to be served with a copy of the order.^ 

^ Assembly Journal, May ig, 1716. 

"^Ibid., May 20, 1716. ^Ibid., June i, 1716. 

*Jbtd., May 21 and 22, 1716. ^Ibid., May 21, 1716. 



428 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



William Lawrence who had not only failed to appear but 
had also disobeyed Hunter's warrant was arrested by the 
sergeant-at-arms, brought before the house/ and com- 
pelled to acknowledge his guilt. ^^ As Brockholst and 
Ackerman, the members from Bergen, also disregarded 
the governor's warrants, they were declared in contempt 
and expelled.' Later in the session, when the sergeant- 
at-arms reported that he had served the orders upon the 
other absentees, and they paid no attention, the house 
likewise expelled Hall and Clews of Salem Countv, and 
Bull, Huling and Joyce, also of the western division. + 
Spicer was declared in contempt, and was to be served 
with a warrant, but he was not expelled, as he had not 
attended any of the sessions, and had not even qualified 
as a member. New elections were ordered where men 
had been expelled, but the expelled members were de- 
clared incapable of sitting. By this wholesale procedure 
the control of the lower house was permanently secured 
by the proprietary party. 

It is almost needless to add that during the session 
the house had agreed perfectly with Hunter and the 
council. In their addresses to his excellency the mem- 
bers declared that his whole administration had been "a 
continued series of justice and moderation," and declared 
that the sole study of Coxe was to disturb the tranquillity 
of the province. 5 Council and assembly joined in send- 
ing an address to the Crown expressing their loyalty.^ 

It was natural that the governor after obtaining such 
an agreeable house should not be in a hurry to dissolve 

^Assembly Journal, May 22, 1716. "Ibid., May 23, 1716. 

^Jbid., May 25, 1716. */bid.. May 30, 31, 1716. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 21; vol. iv, p. 251. 
*Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 25; vol. iv, p. 252. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



429 



it, and indeed during the remaining five years of his ad- 
ministration the seventh assembly continued in existence. 
After the rout of Coxe, for such it really was, open op- 
position to the policy of Hunter collapsed. Coxe him- 
self left the province, and after a sojourn in Pennsylvania, 
sailed for England.' William Hall soon after died, and 
Basse, like a true politician, made his peace with the 
existing powers. Yet on one point the foes of Hunter 
had won a fruitless victory, for the Lords of Trade in 
1716 had written, stating that as the act regarding the 
sitting of assemblies had been formally confirmed, it 
must stand, notwithstanding the change in sovereigns, 
until superseded by another act.^ 

The third session of the seventh assembly met in 
November, 1716, at Chesterfield, or Crosswicks, near 
Burlington. 3 The meeting was not held at the latter 
town itself because of an outbreak of small-pox. New 
elections had been held where members had been ex- 
pelled, and the membership of the house was nearly full. 
But none of the opposition leaders held seats, and there 
were few serious differences in opinion. Basse repre- 
sented Cape May, but proved a peaceful and useful mem- 
ber. Jacob Spicer, too, was brought in early in the 
session in the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, but he 
excused his prolonged absence on the ground of extra- 
ordinary business, and said that his conduct was not due 
to contempt. The house then voted to receive him, and 
he was qualified. ■♦ The greatest harmony prevailed dur- 
ing the entire session, a fact which was the more re- 
markable since much legislation was accomplished. 

Sixteen measures, some of them important, were carried 

'JVew Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 258. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 227. 

^Assembly Journal, Nov. 27, 1716. *Ibid., Dec. 28, 29, 1716. 



430 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

through. But a great deal of time was spent on financial 
questions. The accounts of the treasurer, Gordon, were 
examined by the assembly and a committee of the coun- 
cil named by Hunter at the request of the former body.^ 
Dr. Roberts, the treasurer of the western division was 
compelled to submit his accounts, being arrested and 
brought before the house by these rgeant-at-arms.^ The 
figures of the treasurers were finally approved,^ but the 
greatest remissness was found in the collection of the 
taxes, Burlington alone being in arrears £246 8s. lod., 
the whole amount of the last tax.'' Much attention was 
also given to the handling of the bills of credit. The 
act of support received much attention, and it was 
eventually decided to vote support for three years. The 
governor's salary was raised £100 and other officers 
were likewise given increased pay.^ The work of the 
session was not only approved, but viewed with satisfac- 
tion by Hunter. *" But the shrewd Scot was careful, as 
usual, to keep himself in the background during the 
debates. Desire to dictate openly was certainly not one 
of Hunter's faults. 

The governor did not deem it necessary to summon 
the assembly again till April, 171 8, when they met at 
Amboy. He put before them as the chief need of the 
session the support of the government, as the former act 
was about to expire.^ But the house replied in a respect- 
ful address that though they were ready to provide the 
needed support, the private affairs of the members did 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 17, 18, 1716. 

^ Ibid., Dec. 29, 1716; Jan. i, 171C-17. 

^Ibid., Jan. 14, 1716-17; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 51. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 14, 1716-17. ^Ibid., Dec. 20, 1716-17. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 2"]^, 291. "^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 78. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



43 i 



not permit of a long session. Therefore they prayed to 
be adjourned till the fall or winter.' With this reason- 
able request Hunter promptly complied. Confidence 
and good feeling were displayed by both governor and 
house. 

Meanwhile Coxe in London had been making repre- 
sentations to the home government against Hunter,'' and 
rumors were spread by his supporters in New Jersey 
that the latter was about to be superseded. A paper 
charging Hunter with various offenses, especially in con- 
nection with the proceedings of the recalcitrant members 
of the seventh assembly, was drawn up and signed by 
about fifty of the anti-proprietary party in the province. ^ 
These actions evidently caused Hunter uneasiness, and 
he took every means to defend himself.'* He was in 
no serious danger, however, and upon investigation his 
administration received the approval of the Crown. ^ No 
disorder of any kind had occurred in the province. 

In January, 1718-19, Hunter met his assembly for the 
last time, and while the session was harmonious and suc- 
cessful it was marked by several important considerations. 
In his opening speech the governor reminded the mem- 
bers of the fact that the adjournment to this time was 
occasioned by their own desires. He spoke of the need 
of further support, and made a plea for more liberal sal- 
aries for the officers of the province. The assembly was 
also reminded of the necessity of legislation on the cur- 
rency. The passage of an act providing for the ascer- 
taining of the division line between New Jersey and New 
York was advised, and lastly Hunter, in accordance with 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 80. 

"^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 262. '^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 306. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, p. 312. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 327, 334. 



432 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

instructions, urged the appointment of an agent, since 
New Jersey was the only province unsupplied, and the 
business of the province suffered in consequence. The 
governor asked dispatch, and referred to his own un- 
happy state of health/ 

The house as usual replied by an address.^ This was 
courteous, but certainly did not meet the wishes of the 
executive in all respects. They would provide support 
and see that no injury was done by the bills of credit. 
They were willing to pass an act for the division line, 
but humbly maintained that the expense should be borne 
by the proprietors. As for an agent they regretted that 
the means of the province were not sufficient to main- 
tain one. The address concluded with expressions of 
loyalty to the king and regard for Hunter. 

The assembly passed after lengthy consideration, but 
no open objection, acts not only for ascertaining the 
dividing line from New York, but also for running the 
partition line between East and West Jersey. An act of 
support was also carried, but the assembly would not 
advance salaries. Indeed, the salary of the chief justice 
narrowly escaped reduction, and several of the subor- 
dinate officers were actually reduced.^ The act was for 
only one year, but it was understood that this was be- 
cause of Hunter's approaching retirement. 

Much time, as usual, was spent upon financial affairs. 
After consideration Hunter was requested to name two 
treasurers in future, one for each division. To this he 
readily agreed "as it was for the ease of the people." "^ 
Committees of the house carefully audited the accounts 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 8i. 

"^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 2^, 1718-19. 

'^ Ibid., Jan. 29, 31, 1718-19. *Ibid., Feb. 4, 1718-19. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



433 



of Gordon, the provincial treasurer, and of Roberts, the 
treasurer of the western division, and found them un- 
satisfactory in the extreme.' The assembly then ad- 
dressed Hunter to name some one else in place of Gor- 
don. ■" Just before the close of the meeting the governor 
spoke to the house on the subject. He said that "since 
the house had laid hands upon the treasurer," he would 
be glad if the affair could be settled during his adminis- 
tration. He therefore wished to know whether the 
house desired him to prosecute Gordon.^ Thus he vir- 
tually admitted that the control of the treasury was the 
special function of the representatives. The house after 
consideration replied that as they had found the treas- 
urers' statements merely inconsistent they could not wish 
prosecution before the accounts were more fully settled 
and adjudged. ■• 

The session was prolific in acts, though some were of 
a private character. But a great difficulty was found in 
the fact that the taxes were in arrears over fiooo.^ 

With the adjournment of the fifth session of the seventh 
assembly Hunter's connection with the legislative pro- 
ceedings ceases. The work he had accomplished will 
speak for itself. He had found the departments of the 
government in bitter conflict ; he left them cooperating i 
to good purpose. It is true that he had been content to 
sacrifice some of the authority insisted upon by former 
governors, but the executive would probably have lost 
more through conflict with the assembly. Hunter under- 
stood his place as executive under a representative sys- 
tem, better, no doubt, than those who drew his instruc- 

^ Assembly Journal, March i8, 25, 27, 1718-ig. 

^ Ibid., March 27. 1718-19. ^Ibid., March 28, 1718-19. 

*Ibid., March 28, 1718-19. ^Ibid., March 18, 1 718-19. 



434 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

tions. The worst that can be said of him is that he 
identified himself with a party and that he was not too 
scrupulous in the means he employed against Coxe and 
his other opponents. But it was impossible to induce 
the bitter wranglers whom he found in the council and 
assembly to agree. Either one faction or the other must 
go. It may be a question whether the governor made 
the right choice, but it certainly would have been far 
harder for him to maintain himself against the opposition 
of the proprietors. It does seem as if, for a time at 
least, Coxe and his party represented majority sentiment 
in New Jersey, but Hunter always maintained that the 
election of Coxe and his followers was secured by fraud 
"through an inundation of Swedes."' The opponents 
of Hunter were certainly far more unscrupulous than he. 
At any rate Hunter must receive from the historian the 
commendation due to him who accomplishes excellent 
results. 

Although Governor Burnet had the advantage of 
Hunter's friendship and advice, he began his relations 
with the legislature most unfortunately. Although it 
was the prevailing opinion in New Jersey that the ap- 
pointment of a new governor required the election of a 
new assembly, he determined to retain the body which 
had co-operated so well with Hunter, and summoned a 
sixth session of the seventh assembly in February, 1720- 
21. Burnet's attitude upon the legality of continuing an 
assembly was approved by the Board of Trade,^ but it 
led to a heated conflict. Although most of the mem- 
bers came to Burlington, they refused to regard them- 
selves as a legal assembly.^ Burnet believed that there 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 210. -Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 183. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 145. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



435 



was a regular conspiracy to defeat his administration 
and cast the blame upon the Jacobite, George Willocks,' 
who had been a supporter of Hunter, but whose refusal 
to take the oaths to King George prejudiced the new 
governor, fresh as he was from old-world politics, against 
him. But the real cause of the trouble seems to have 
been the refusal of Burnet to lend himself to the plans 
of the Amboy group of proprietors who desired to se- 
cure an act incorporating the proprietors of East Jersey 
in such a manner as to place all the real power in their 
own hands.' This antagonizing of a powerful proprie- 
tary interest by the executive was a departure from the 
policy of Hunter. 

After much difficulty the governor at length succeeded 
in persuading the assembly to meet for business on Feb- 
ruary 28th. Before his formal speech he told the mem- 
bers that they had behaved undutifully, but he took it 
that their presence at that time denoted a change. In 
his address he made a plea for harmony, stating that he 
had received a favorable character of the assembly from 
Hunter. Burnet then asked for a more liberal support, 
as the salaries of the royal officers were insufficient. He 
also spoke of the need of action to benefit the currency, 
avowed his desire to assent to all good measures, and 
closed with generalizations about the goodness of King 
George. 3 

But further difficulties at once followed, and Burnet, 
to compel the house to reflect upon its conduct, took 
the rather irritating measure of adjourning it from day 
to day for twenty days.* Perhaps the chief subject of 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. v, pp. 11, 32. 

'/did., vol. V, p. 56 ^/ seg. '^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 147. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 177. 



436 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

conflict was the matter of support. The house drew up 
a bill for support for two years, though it refused to in- 
crease the appropriations. Hunter would no doubt have 
accepted this as the best that could be obtained under 
the circumstances.' But Burnet took his stand upon his 
instructions which required that grants for support be 
unlimited in time.^ He refused to consider an appropri- 
ation for less than five years. The council accordingly, 
at the instance of the governor, amended the bill for 
support, to accord with the instructions. ^ The house, of 
course, showed the true colonial spirit in the matter, 
and not only refused to agree to the amendment, but 
declared that the council had no right to amend a money 
bill.* For this conduct the assembly was scolded by the 
governor, but the result was that no support was given. 
Another subject of contention was regarding the form 
in which new members of the assembly should be quali- 
fied. At the beginning of the session the house decided 
that two of its members were not properly qualified, and 
accordingly ordered new elections. When the new mem- 
bers arrived the house desired Burnet to send the clerk 
of the Crown with the rolls of oaths that they might be 
sworn. 5 But Burnet, who believed that the former mem- 
bers had been dismissed because they had evinced a will- 
ingness to agree with the executive, replied that the prac- 
tice had always been to swear new members before the 
governor, and this must be carried out.^ The house then 
cited a number of cases when members had been sworn 
by the clerk before the assembly,'' but Burnet declared 

^ Ntw Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. i6o, igo-i. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 153, 193. "'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 193. 

*Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 195. "Ibid. vol. xiv, p. 154. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 155. ''Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 157. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



437 



that such instances made no difference. The governor 
had the power to commit the act to another if he chose, 
but if he required, members must be sworn before him.' 
The controversy continued without satisfaction to either 
department," but no record appears that the oaths were 
administered. 

A second question also became involved. Burnet in 
his address to the house on the question of the qualifica- 
tions of members declared that the acts of the provincial 
legislature regulating qualifications were not in force, as 
they had not received the confirmation of the Crown, 
and changes had since been made by the Crown in the 
instructions which were at variance with the acts.^ As 
an instance of such change, the instructions now required 
the members to possess an estate of £500 sterling, while 
the provincial acts required only £500 proclamation 
money. To this wholly untenable proposition the 
assembly naturally replied by resolving that provincial 
acts were in force until disallowed by the home gov- 
ernment.* The governor spoke to them hotly on the 
subject, but of course gained nothing. 

There was a dispute about military concerns. Burnet 
laid before the council the instructions which required 
him to obtain contributions from New Jersey and other 
colonies for the defense of the northern frontier, to pro- 
vide suitable fortifications for New Jersey itself, and to 
insist upon a strengthening of the militia. The council 
agreed that the defense of the frontier was a matter of 
concern to New Jersey, and that she ought to contribute. 
But they held that the situation of the settlements in 
New Jersey made fortification wholly unnecessary. They 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 158. ^Ibid., vol. xiv. p. 177. 
^Ibid., vol. xiv. p. 155. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 162. 



,438 '^^HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

agreed that the militia should be strengthened, since the 
defense of the Jerseys really depended upon it, and drew 
up a bill for that purpose.^ But the assembly at once 
amended it so that it merely provided for a continuance 
of the former conditions." They would not be moved 
from their position and the bill was lost. Burnet in- 
cluded this matter also in his scoldings. 

While the governor did not try to interfere with the 
house in the work of auditing the treasury accounts and 
carrying on the further financial supervision which it had 
assumed, he did criticise the assembly for condemning 
the accounts of Thomas Gordon, the former treasurer, 
before he had been able to appear and be heard. ^ 

Throughout the session Burnet, though firm, displayed 
lack of tact. He personally addressed the members 
of the house no less than seven times and on six of 
these occasions he had the speaker and the assembly 
summoned before him. He sent a lengthy message, 
also, in reply to a set of resolutions voted by the house.* 
His speeches were hardly more than scoldings, and he 
showed a constant desire to impress the members with 
the fact that he was wiser and more accurate in his 
knowledge than they. At first he endeavored to put 
them into the position of well-meaning men^ who had 
been misled by clever and designing rascals such as Wil- 
locks ; but he finally dismissed them with direct charges 
of misconduct.^ 

The assembly on its part was not unwilling to retaliate 
in kind. Early in the session it passed the resolutions 

^ New Jet sey Archives , vol. xiv, pp. 167-175. 
"^Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 197-8. '•''Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 196. 

* Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 158. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 152. 

*'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 199. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



439 



which so excited Burnet's wrath.' These declared among 
other things that the house had not been led aside into 
practices dangerous to the public peace and derogatory 
to the prerogative ; that they were not sensible of heats 
and animosities among themselves as the governor 
charged ; and that their cheerfulness in raising a suitable 
support was such as to entitle them to the same good 
character that they had from Hunter. Other resolutions 
defended their positions on the several subjects of con- 
troversy. On April sixth the house presented an ad- 
dress to Burnet" which covered some of the same points 
as the resolutions, but also complained directly of the 
governor's conduct in adjourning the house twenty days 
to the great expense of the province, and of his meddling 
with the business of the house which they took to be a 
breach of privilege. They stated that even Cornbury, 
the worst governor of all. never interfered with the 
house when it determined the qualifications of members, 
though he had refused to swear three of them. How- 
ever they charitably suggested that Burnet would not 
have gone to such lengths had he not been imposed 
upon by designing men. 

Later, however, the house became more conciliatory. 
After having been shown a letter of December 20, 1720, 
from the Board of Trade, they willingly admitted that 
Burnet was justified in continuing the assembly. On 
April 26th they presented an address of very friendly 
tone, ending by saying that they hoped a good under- 
standing had now begun.^ But the governor was ap- 
parently as much displeased with their later action, 
especially with their rejection of the militia act, as with 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 159. 'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 176. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 185. 



440 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

their earlier conduct. The dissolution of the long-suffer- 
ing assembly by the governor on May 26, 1721, brings 
to the student a sense of relief. Yet the quarrels be- 
tween Burnet and the assembly have in one respect an 
interest beyond many of those we have considered, for 
they were manifestly not entirely the outgrowth of party 
politics in the province, but grew rather out of the nat- 
ural differences in oibject between the representative of 
the home government and the representatives of the 
people of the colony. 

But the unpleasant session just described was not, as 
might have been expected, the forerunner of later stormy 
proceedings. When the eighth assembly at length met, 
in March, 1721-2, at Amboy, it was constituted partly 
at least of new men who had had no share in the recent 
disputes.' Burnet, himself, appears in quite a different 
role, and no doubt had learned something from his ex- 
perience. After the assembly had chosen Dr. Johnstone, 
the proprietor, as speaker, the governor reminded them 
of the necessity of providing suitable support for the 
government. In this matter he asked them not to con- 
sider so much his own salary as that of the inferior offi- 
cers, many of whom could not cover expenses. He 
congratulated the assembly upon the mineral discoveries 
recently made in the province, and closed by patriotic 
reference to the defeat of the Pretender.^ The house 
replied as usual by an address, in which they said they 
would demonstrate their loyalty by providing for the 
government. They regretted that the circumstances of 
the province would not permit them to support the 
dignity of the government as it deserved. When the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 204 (note). 
"'Ibid... vol. xiv, p. 205. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



441 



imaginary mineral treasures became real, they would 
make the government a partaker in their advantages.' 
Burnet thanked the members for their good intentions 
and the work of the session began. 

The discords of the seventh assembly were apparently 
forgotten. The house without undue delay prepared a 
bill for support for five years, thus conceding to the 
governor the long-term appropriation upon which he had 
insisted. This was certainly an important victory for 
Burnet. On the other hand the subordinate officers 
received little advance in salary.' Numerous other 
measures, including a militia act, were carried through ^ 
and the house exercised its usual supervision of the 
finances. The auditing of Gordon's accounts seemed to 
prove that he was indebted to the sum of £1070 8s. yd., 
and there was the usual heavy arrearage of taxes.* 

Upon only one important measure was the accord be- 
tween executive and legislative broken. James Smith, 
the provincial secretary, had memorialized the Loids ol 
Trade, representing the hardship he suffered owing to 
the reduction of the fees of his office by several acts 
passed while Basse was secretary, and aimed against him.^ 
Burnet, having received a letter from the Lords upon this 
matter, prepared a bill repealing the portions of acts 
cutting down the fees."" This bill was promptly passed 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiv, p. 207. 

"^ Assembly Journal, April 4, 1722. 

^Ibid., May 5, 1722. * Ibid., April 27, 1722. 

'^They were: an Act for Shortening law Suites and Regulating the 
practice of the Law; an Act for enforcing the ordinance for establishing 
of fees; and an Act for Acknowledging & recording of deeds & Con- 
veyances of land in each County of this province. All these were 
eventually disallowed by the Crown; Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, 
PP- 541, 552. 

*Jbid., vol. xiv, p. 225. 



442 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



by the council, but the house after consideration refused 
to take action till next session/ Meanwhile the house had 
passed a bill for compelling clerks and other officers who 
kept records to give security. Burnet held that this meas- 
ure was intended to ruin the secretary, and when it ap- 
peared that the bill instead of being copied by the clerk 
was in the hand-writing of Willocks, his wrath blazed 
up. So angry was he that when Col. Anderson of the 
council said that he did not regard Willocks as an enemy 
of the government he promptly suspended him.'' 

But there was no serious break between the governor 
and house. The assembly toward the end of the session 
greatly pleased Burnet by carrying a bill for the security 
of the government which enabled him to prosecute as 
enemies all who refused the oaths of allegiance. ^ Thus 
his hands were strengthened against Willocks, who was 
soon compelled to flee the province. Burnet on the 
closing day thanked the m.embers warmly and requested 
them to adjourn themselves till October first. 

The second session of the eighth assembly was doubt- 
less even more satisfactory to the governor. It met on 
September 27, 1723, at Burlington. Some little delay 
was caused by the absence of Dr. Johnstone, the speaker, 
who declared himself ill and unable to attend, but upon 
the direction of the governor a new speaker, William 
Trent, was elected.'* The change was a happy one ; for 
Johnstone, though he pretended to be favorable to Burnet, 
was actually the partner of Willocks and apparently had 
been at the bottom of some of the recent troubles. ^ 

^Assembly Journal, May 3, 4, 1722. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 220-221. 

^ Assembly Journal, May 4, 172?. ^ Ibid., Sept. 27, 1723- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 56 ei seq. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



443 



During the session the support granted to the govern- 
ment was increased by the appropriation of a fund of 
£i,ooo per annum, to the great satisfaction of Burnet and 
the other crown officers who shared in the benefits. 
This appropriation ran for ten years. But the unpre- 
cedented HberaHty was due to the fact that the royal 
instructions permitted the issue of bills of credit only 
in acts for support.' 

Yet there were some differences of opinion. The 
governor and council had recently prepared an ordinance 
reconstituting the court of the province. This was ad- 
mittedly a part of the executive power, but the ordinance 
caused complaint because under its provisions the su- 
preme court was to sit only at Amboy and Burlington. 
One of the first steps of the assembly was therefore to 
address Burnet for permission to bring in a bill changing 
this ordinance.' But the governor and council, though 
they professed themselves willing to remedy all inconve- 
niences, were unwilling that it should be done by bill.^ 
Later in the session the house again addressed Burnet, 
asking that he appoint a chief justice who resided in New 
Jersey. They made no charges against Mr. Jamison, 
but believed that inasmuch as the governor necessarily 
resided in New York the chief judicial ofificer should be 
always in the province.* Burnet replied favorably, and 
soon afterward nominated Trent as chief justice. ^ The 
house voted that there should be paid to a chief justice 
who would ride the circuit £ioo as occasion required; 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 75; Assembly Journal, Oct. 8, 17-3- 

-Ibid., Oct. 16, 1723. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 251-2. 

'^ Assembly Journal, Nov. i},, 1723. 

''New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 257. 



444 ^^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

they also gave the attorney-general £40 a year for two 
years in addition to his regular salary ; the second judge 
received £50 and the clerk of the circuits £20.' 

The house sent up a bill for obliging the estate of 
Thomas Gordon, now deceased, to make good the defi- 
ciencies in the accounts of the province.^ But the coun- 
cil refused to approve immediately, and ordered that at 
the next session the parties concerned should appear. 
The house was desired to appoint persons to make good 
its charges against Gordon, ^ a step which it immediately 
took. 

During this session the house also engaged Peter La 
Heupe as its agent in England at a salary of £100 a year/ 
Although the governor had previously recommended the 
appointment of an agent for the province, neither the 
executive nor the council was to have any share in con- 
trolling his conduct. That no serious opposition was 
offered to this step of the house is somewhat remark- 
able. By obtaining an independent agent its influence 
was much increased. 

Petitions were received from the widows of Mompesson 
and Pinhorne for sums due their husbands under warrants 
from Cornbury. Application was also made by Mary 
Ingoldsby for arrears due in Ingoldsby's time.^ But 
though Burnet in his speech, by royal order, endorsed 
these claims,^ the assembly would not recognize them.^ 
Evidently the recollections of Cornbury and Ingoldsby 
were still bitter. These points of diflference, however, 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 23, 27, 1723. ''■Ibid., Nov. 26, 1723. 

^ Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 261. 

^Assembly Journal, Nov. 27, 1723. 

'•" Ibid., Sept. 30 and Nov. 16, 1723. 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 247. 'Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 249. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



445 



did not seriously injure the good feeling between the 
governor and the representatives. 

In May, 1725, a third successful session of the eighth 
assembly was held. As the original act of support was 
about to expire, the house made a new appropriation 
which was again to run for five years.' Much time w^as 
given to financial matters, as was necessitated by the 
system of bills of credit. The case of Gordon was con- 
sidered in the council, a defence of the estate being- 
made by his widow. ^ At the very end of the session, the 
house, which had given up its attempt to condemn 
Gordon's estate by an act, requested Burnet to order 
the prosecution of the representatives of the late treas- 
urer, and the governor assented. ^ A disputed election 
case in Burlington also forced itself upon the attention 
of the representatives. Col. Coxe had again appeared 
and disputed the election of the Quaker, Mahlon Stacy. 
But after a spirited debate Stacy was finally seated,* and 
the sheriff was reprimanded for improper conduct in the 
election. 5 Some useful measures were carried, but this 
was the last session of the assembly, because the death 
of George I brought about its dissolution. 

The ninth assembly, however, the last under Burnet's 
administration, was very similar to the eighth in consti- 
tution, though the growing influence of John Kinsey, Jr. 
was more clearly shown in its deliberations. The new 
assembly met in Dec, 1727, at Amboy, and chose Dr. 
Johnstone speaker. Burnet explained his failure to meet 
them the previous spring by the necessity he was under 

^Assembly Jotirnal, June 12, 16, 1725. 

-New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 284. 

''Assembly Journal, Aug. 23, 1725. ^ Ibid., July 29, 1725. 

^Ibid., Aug. 14, 1725. 



446 



THE PROVIXCE OF XEW JERSEY 



of counteracting the advance of the French on the north- 
ern frontier. This work he believed to be for the pro- 
tection of New Jersey as well as of New York. He also 
explained that he had summoned the meeting at Amboy 
instead of Burlington because he was momentarily ex- 
pecting the arrival of his successor. Burnet suggested 
that the province should provide a suitable residence for 
its governor. He, himself, had been at considerable ex- 
pense in obtaining a house which he would like his suc- 
cessor to escape.' In their answering address the house 
after professions of loyalty to George H said among other 
things that they were highly pleased with the alternate 
sessions at Burlington and Amboy. but they had no ob- 
jection to the present meeting if it were not made a 
precedent. They felt that they must say, however, when 
a change of governors was about to be made that it was 
a great disadvantage for New Jersey to be joined with so 
powerful a colony as New York. This was not a reflec- 
tion upon Burnet, as they regretted that he had not been 
wholly theirs. The assembly took no notice whatsoever 
of the advice that they procure an executive mansion.^ 

The work of the session was upon the whole interest- 
ing. Early in it the house addressed Burnet asking that 
he allow a committee of the council to join one of the 
house to consider means to redress the hardships suffered 
under the present arrangement of courts.-' But the gov- 
ernor only replied that he would lay the matter before 
the council.* Thus aggression in this field by the as- 
sembly was again checked. 

Toward the end of the session a serious difference of 

^ A'ezi' Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 341. 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 13, 1727. 

* Ibid.. Jan. 2, 1727-8. * Ibid., Jan. 3, 1727-8. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IX CONFLICT j^j 

Opinion arose between the council and house. This grew 
out of an effort to ensure a more satisfactory recording 
of deeds and land titles. We may believe that the quarrel 
over this question was partly the result of the resurrection 
of the old council of proprietors of East Jersey which had 
come about in 1725. The proprietors evidently controlled 
the council absolutely, while the house, though not actu- 
ally anti-proprietary, was not devoted to the interest of 
the proprietors. The reappearance of the land question 
in any form before the provincial legislature is significant. 
The house had prepared a bill for preventing the trouble 
and expense involved in the enrollment of deeds and 
conveyances of land. This bill the council would not ac- 
cept without amendment.' They desired that deeds of 
proprietors should be recorded only in the oflfice of the 
recorder of the proprietors, as otherwise the " door 
would be opened " for frauds and mistakes regarding the 
distribution of the proprietary dividends. Disagreement 
and unsatisfactory conference followed. To remedy the 
difficulty the council then sent down a bill to prevent 
frauds and mistakes in obtaining warrants for surveys of 
lands and for keeping minutes of the deeds on which 
they were founded and for recovery of the minutes of the 
council of proprietors.^ 

Upon continued application from the house as to their 
decision on the former bill the council replied that they 
had resolved not to come to a resolution upon it until 
the house had taken action upon the bill to prevent frauds 
and mistakes. 3 This message the house hotly resented, 
declaring that they were under no obligation to render 
account of their actions.* The council replied by a long 

^ Assembly Jour ?ial, Jan. 11. 1727-8. "Ibid., Feb. i, 1727-8. 

^Ibid., Feb. 2, 1727-8. 'Ibid., Feb. 3, 1727-8. 



448 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

message defending themselves, declaring that their bill 
only involved the substance of what had been agreed in 
conference, and asserting that all representatives were 
responsible for their actions.' The house maintained 
that such a thing as the new law opening the door for 
frauds was purely imaginary, for as things then stood 
there was no necessity for recording deeds anywhere. 
The wrangle continued and both bills were lost, as well 
as another bill for prescribing the time of recording sur- 
veys, upon which there had been some difference of 
opinion. In this conflict the governor, however, does 
not appear to have been very directly involved. 

During this session a bill was passed for frequent 
meetings of the assembly. It provided that sessions 
should be held at least once in three years, and that no 
assembly should last longer than the same period. Bur- 
net accepted this measure,^ but it was later disallowed by 
the home authorities. In spite of the spirited debates 
the assembly was industrious, and thirteen acts were 
finally passed.^ 

Burnet, who was transferred to the governorship of 
Massachusetts Bay, was succeeded by the amiable court- 
ier John Montgomerie. Though his administration had 
not been marked by the tact and political insight so 
characteristic of Hunter, he had given New Jersey hon- 
est and honorable rule, and had added prestige to the 

' Assembly Journal, Feb. 6, 1727-8. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 192; vol. xiv, p. 388. 

^ Among these were: an act for shortening of law suits, and an act 
concerning the acknowledging and registering of deeds, etc., which 
again reduced the fees of the secretary. He was, however, given £2$ 
per annum as additional salary. Smith later represented that Burnet 
approved of these acts in spite of their previous disallowance in return 
for a gift of ^600. Both acts were again disallowed. Neiv Jersey 
Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 191, 198. Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 449 

royal governorship. In some respects Burnet had actu- 
ally strengthened the executive, as in the case of his 
obtaining long appropriations for support. If he could 
have suppressed a little more his own personality he 
would have lacked little of the success of his great 
predecessor. 

Montgomerie, upon advice of his council, decided to 
follow the example of Burnet, and retain the same as- 
sembly as his predecessor. The result was scarcely more 
satisfactory. Montgomerie journeyed to Burlington in 
December, T728, and opened the second session of the 
ninth assembly in a courteous and well-worded speech, 
in which, however, the only positive recommendation 
was for the granting of a suitable support.' The as- 
sembly replied in kind. They congratulated themselves 
upon receiving as governor one who had been so close 
to the king and who had held such other office as that 
of member of parliament.- 

The house at once began work upon an act of support 
for three years, and other measures. But on January 
9th it voted after debate that it would be advantageous 
for New Jersey to have a distinct government, and a 
committee was sent to the governor and council to ask 
their co-operation and a conference as to the best mode 
of obtaining separation. They assured Montgomerie 
that they had no desire to cause him uneasiness, but 
only to do what they thought their duty.^ Such con- 
duct was too much for the courtier soul of the new 

■^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 396. 

^Assembly Journal, Dec. 19, 1728. 

^ Ibid., Jan. 9, 1728-^. This project was the work of John Kinsey, Jr. 
He had endeavored to set on foot a similar movement under Burnet, 
but had been persuaded by that governor to give up his attempt for the 
time. Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 262. 



450 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

governor. After consultation with his council he first 
adjourned and then dissolved the assembly which had 
dared to take such bold action without first ascertaining 
the will of the Crown.' In his communications with the 
home government Montgomerie heaped the blame upon 
the Quakers in such manner as to recall their arch- 
enemy Ingoldsby.^ 

Montgomerie did not meet the tenth assembly till May, 
1730. Most of the members of the last house were re- 
turned, but John Kinsey succeeded Dr. Johnstone as 
speaker. The governor's speech made touching refer- 
ence to the loving care of King George for his " remote 
dominions," but contained no positive recommendations,^ 
while the house replied respectfully with similar general- 
ities.'* The session thus begun was rather prolific in acts 
and was unmarked by serious conflict. An act was 
passed for "the freedom of assemblies," which forbade 
any representative to accept a crown office while serving. ^ 
The council hesitated to assent to it at first, but eventu- 
ally did so. 

Just as had been the case in Burnet's time, the assembly 
insisted upon appropriating for immediate use the interest 
money accruing from the work of the loan offices. This 
the Lords of Trade had forbidden, but both Burnet and 
Montgomerie, accepting the representations of the lead- 
ers of the province, had endeavored to move them to 
change their decision." Montgomerie now consented to 
the passage of a bill making such an appropriation, fearing 
that if he stood out the assembly might refuse to vote 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 399. -Ibid., vol. v, p. 234. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 408. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 410. 

* Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 165, 200, 249, 266, 302. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 431 

support.' Later the Lords of Trade expressed surprise 
at his action. A bill had been introduced to appropriate 
support for five years,'' but the measure was later dropped 
and a new bill substituted, couplin_^ the granting of sup- 
port with the appropriations of the interest money. ^ 
Montgomerie, with the aid of Kinsey and Johnstone, 
managed to have the two measures separated, but only 
upon the understanding that both should be accepted.* 
The amount of support was about the same as that given 
to Burnet. While this matter was under consideration 
the council prepared a bill for additional support and for 
laying a duty on all copper ore exported, but the house 
would not consider an appropriation bill originating in 
the council.^ A militia bill sent down, however, was 
accepted without opposition. During the session there 
are several indications that the house was not entirely 
under the control of the proprietors ; among other things 
a bill for regulating the affairs of the proprietors of the 
Western Division failed of passage. 

The chief cause of difficulty between the governor and 
the assembly had meanwhile been removed as the Lords 
of Trade had advised Montgomerie that they saw no 
reason for interfering with the petitions for a separate 
government, provided they were drawn peaceably and 
openly.^ Much thought was undoubtedly given by the 
members to this subject. The agent, Partridge, was 
thanked for what he had already done and a regular ap- 
propriation was made for him for five years. ^ Toward 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 287. 

"^ Assembly Journal , May 27, 1730. ^ Ibid., Jan, 3, 1730. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 288. 

^Assembly Journal, June 22, 1730. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 247. 

"^ Assembly Journal, June 5, 1730. 



452 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the end of the session a formal address to the crown for 
separation was prepared by the house without interfer- 
ence from the governor. In this address the assembly 
was careful to state that they had the best feeling for 
Montgomerie/ 

The death of the governor in July, 1731, certainly 
turned out to be a misfortune to the province owing to 
the selection of an improper successor. Montgomerie 
was inexperienced and of no great ability. He was yield- 
ing in disposition, however, and would not have created 
serious opposition. All who met him seem to have 
credited him with good intentions. 

Only one meeting of the assembly occurred during the 
administration of William Cosby, and this began at Bur- 
lington in April, 1733. Before it took place, however, 
Cosby had become involved in difficulties in New York 
which had necessarily an influence upon feeling in the 
sister province. He had antagonized violently Lewis 
Morris, whom he had removed from the chief-justiceship 
of New York, and James Alexander, the next ablest man 
among the proprietors of East Jersey. Though the 
quarrel originated in New York, Cosby endeavored to 
secure the removal of these two prominent persons from 
the council of New Jersey.^ The Lords of Trade actu- 
ally recommended the removal of Morris, ^ but the latter 
himself went to England and after representations on 
both sides maintained his position. Neither Morris nor 
Alexander attended meetings of the council under Cosby, 
but their influence, of course, was cast against him. 

The session of 1733 was nevertheless not marked by 
serious conflict between Cosby and the house. The gov- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 270. 

* Ibid., vol. V, pp. 325, 395, 402, etc. '^ Ibid., vol. v, pp. 408, 433- 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 



453 



ernor in his speech excused his delay in calHng the as- 
sembly by the fact that he had remained in England to 
cast his influence against the sugar bill, by the excessive 
cold of the recent winter, and by his regard for the con- 
venience of the majority of the members. He said that 
he believed that they were resolved to raise a revenue for 
the government and revealed his uneasiness about the 
possible separation of New Jersey from New York by 
declaring that he would divide his time as far as possible 
between the two provinces. The speech closed with the 
usual patriotic references to the good intentions of the 
king.' The assembly in reply acknowledged the efforts 
of the governor against the sugar act and said that 
though they regretted that an earlier session was impos 
sible they would now apply themselves to business with 
all diligence. They would endeavor to provide for the 
government so that he might pass a considerable time 
among them and were grateful to have a person of "his 
excellency's character" to govern them. The address of 
the house certainly revealed no lack of confidence." 

But in spite of its favorable expressions the assembly 
was slow in accomplishing results. After nearly seven 
weeks it had made little progress, and Cosby thought it 
necessary after administering a mild rebuke to adjourn 
it for a month. On reassembling, the house did better, 
though there is little evidence that it employed haste. ^ 

The assembly finally gave the usual support for three 
years, and also passed an act appropriating interest 
money for the incidental charges of the government.* 
This measure Cosby approved, and the Lords of Trade, 

^- New Jersey Archives, vol, xiv, p. 476. 

^Assembly Journal, May 10, 1733. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 481. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 501. 



454 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

in spite of their previous attitude, allowed it to stand. 
Four other acts were also passed, and the assembly 
performed its usual supervisory work over the finances, 
but a bill for the frequent calling of the assembly was 
lost in the council/ 

Before the adjournment the house had addressed the 
governor upon the inconvenience of having members of 
the council who were not residents of the province. 
They prayed that he would name only residents for 
future vacancies in the council and to all other posts of 
trust. Cosby received the request favorably, and said 
he would take particular care in the matter.^ The ses- 
sion was finally brought to a close on August i6, 1733. 
In the light of Cosby's record in New York it is impos- 
sible to commend his conduct as an executive. It must 
be admitted, however, that in his dealings with the as- 
sembly of New Jersey he gave no especial cause for 
ofTense. His death in 1736 prevented further trial of 
his abilities, as he did not again call a session in New 
Jersey. 

During the period from the death of Cosby to the 
commissioning of Lewis Morris as New Jersey's first 
separate governor, the legislative department of the 
province was suspended. This interval was marked by 
renewed and successful application to the home authori- 
ties for independence from New York, in which proceed- 
ings Richard Partridge, the agent of the " general 
assembly," took an active part,^ and by the unfortunate 

'A bill for shortening of law suits and regulating the practice of the 
law, and another concerning the acknowledging and registering of 
deeds and conveyances of land, etc., were also lost in the council. The 
titles of these bills are like those of the acts passed under Burnet and 
disallowed in 1731. Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 469-473. 

^ Assembly Jourtml, Ma}' 18, 1733. ^Ibid., vol. v, pp. 448, 451. 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT ^-^ 

controversy between Morris and Col. John Hamilton 
regarding the presidency of the council. With these 
matters we are not, however, here concerned. 

Looking back over the long and varied field of con- 
troversy between the executive and legislative depart- 
ments during the union period, w^e are now in a position 
to see distinctly certain general characteristics of the 
conflict as well as its more important results. Stripping 
off the accidental circumstances connected with the 
various differences of opinion, we find that in the main 
they involved the following questions: (i) the payment 
of the salary of the governor and other officers; (2) the 
confirmation of the rights of the proprietors over the 
Elizabethtown tract, and other disputed districts; (3) 
the right of the house to have a responsible treasurer, to 
audit his accounts, and to provide for his punishment if 
necessary; (4) the right of the house to equality with 
the council upon such points as (a) conferences upon 
disputed bills, (b) access to the journals of the other 
house, (c) the examination of all documents, laws, 
and other similar materials; (5) the privileges and lib- 
erties of the house involving such matters as (a) the 
right of the house to determine the qualifications of its 
own members, (b) the right to have a clerk named by 
themselves in committee of the whole, (c) the right to 
the title of general assembly; (6) whether the appoint- 
ment of a new governor required the election of a new 
assembly; (7) whether Quakers could hold of^ce and 
enjoy other rights of complete citizenship; (8) the 
organization and especially the discipline of the militia; 
(9) the power of the governor to change the place of 
holding sessions; (10) the exclusive right of the gov- 
ernor and council to constitute and regulate the pro- 
cedure in the courts; (ii) the exclusive right of the 



456 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



house to originate all bills appropriating money; (12) 
the appointment of non-residents to office; (13) the 
right of the house to address the Crown upon matters 
not approved by the governor and council, as the estab- 
lishment of a separate government; (14) the validity of 
provincial laws not formally approved by the Crown ; 
(15) the gratification of party and personal animosity. 

To the student of colonial history it is not at all sur- 
prising that the house, vested as it was with control of 
the purse strings, should win victory upon nearly all of 
the issues and thus cut down gradually, but very mate- 
rially, the sphere of action of the executive. Upon the 
first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, thirteenth and four- 
teenth of the debated questions the victory of the lower 
house was practically complete. Upon the ninth issue 
also it was virtually successful. Upon the eleventh and 
twelfth the assembly maintained its position. The only 
reason that the efforts of the house to confirm the in- 
terests of the proprietors failed was that the later assem- 
blies were not under complete proprietary control. If 
the house had remained true to the proprietors, it would 
easily have prevailed. The only issues upon which the 
house was, up to 1738, squarely defeated were the sixth 
and tenth. Of these the sixth was of comparatively 
little importance, Avhile as to the tenth, the wishes of the 
house were to a great extent followed though its tech- 
nical control was not established. In New Jersey, then, 
as in all of the American colonies, the whole trend of 
the political development was in the direction of making 
the governor the executor of the wishes of the assembly 
rather than its master. This result is the more interest- 
ing because, down at least to the administration of Bur- 
net, the great political issue was between the proprietary 
and anti-proprietary parties. Executive and legislature 



EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE IN CONFLICT 457 

were in general opposed to each other as agents of the 
provincial factions rather than because of their inherently 
different objects and points of view. It is a false view 
which reads into New Jersey history during the earlier 
part of the eighteenth century opposition to the gov- 
ernor as the royal representative. The attacks upon the 
governor were always made upon the ground that he did 
not properly represent the king ; that is to say, they 
were based upon the true principles of the English sys- 
tem of government. The theory was always that the 
interests of people and king were identical, and the time 
had not yet come when men saw that it was not so. 



CHAPTER XXIII 

The Judicial System 

Upon a topic on which so excellent a monograph as 
Judge Field's Provincial Courts of New Jersey already 
exists little indeed remains to be said. The present 
chapter is, however, required to make our survey of the 
political institutions of the Jerseys complete. 

At the time of the surrender to the Crown complete 
systems of courts existed in both the Jerseys. In East 
Jersey the earliest court was that in the town of Bergen. 
After the English conquest there was another at Wood- 
bridge. But these were purely local courts established 
by the corporations of the two towns in accordance with 
their charters.^ The Monmouth settlers also established 
certain courts in virtue of their patent from Col. Nicolls. 
These, however, were discontinued after the submission 
of the Monmouth patentees to Berkeley and Carteret.'' 

But a court system was established first in 1675 t>y act 
of assembly. There was instituted first a monthly court 
of small causes for the trial of disputes under forty shil- 
lings. These courts were to be held in each town by two 
or three persons elected for the purpose, one of whom 
must be a justice. ^ Above these were to be county 
courts or courts of sessions, to be held twice a year in 

'Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors , pp. 287, 294. 
^Marcellus, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. i, 
p. 167. 

* Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, p. 99. 
458 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



459 



each county. The county judges were also to be elected. 
Apparently the county court had unlimited jurisdiction, 
but there was, of course, appeal, though in cases under 
£20 this was to be allowed only to the court of assize 
or the court of chancery.' The court of assize was 
the provincial court, which was to meet once a year at 
Woodbridge or where the governor and council should 
appoint.^ From it appeal lay to the governor in coun- 
cil and then to the crown. This general arrangement, 
though modified in numerous of its details,' continued 
until the surrender. 

The name of the provincial court was changed to the 
court of common right under the Twenty-four Proprie- 
tors,* and its place of sitting was moved first to Eliza- 
bethtovvn, and then to Amboy.^ It was given, also, 
jurisdiction in equity as well as in common law. Accord- 
ing to Field this interesting combination of power was 
the result of Scotch jurisprudence, since in Scotland 
there was never a distinct court of equity.^ The com- 
bination was not, however, satisfactory to the people, for 
in 1698 the general assembly, in the celebrated act de- 
claring " what are the rights and privileges of his 
majesty's subjects inhabiting within this province," 
decreed that judges of common right should not be 
judges of the high court of chancery.^ Equity jurisdic- 
tion was apparently intended to be exercised, if it was 
exercised at all, by the governor and council. 

The development in West Jersey was in the main sim- 

' Learning and Spicer, op. cit., pp. 96-7. 

"^Ibid., p. 97. ^ Ibid., pp. 229-232, 270, 304, 347. 

*Ibid., p. 199. '"Ibid., pp. 2^2, 293. 

* Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, pp. 12, 13. 

'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 370. 



46o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ilar. It is rendered especially interesting nevertheless, 
because of the predominance of Quaker influence with 
its peculiar and commendable attitude toward both legal 
procedure and crime. The simplicity of Quaker thought 
in this direction is vividly recalled when we read that 
Thomas Olive, when governor of West Jersey, used to 
dispense justice " sitting on the stumps in his meadows." 

As the basis of the system in West Jersey, there 
was a court of small causes held by a single justice 
having jurisdiction up to forty shillings with appeal 
to the county court.' County courts were established 
for Burlington and Salem in 1682, and in the other 
counties somewhat later. They were held four times a 
year by the justices of each county, and appear to have 
had unlimited jurisdiction in all cases civil and criminal, 
except that they could not try offenses of a capital 
nature. "" 

Not until 1693 was there created a supreme court of 
appeals, consisting of one or more of the justices of each 
county and one or more of the governor's council. ^ 
Down to 1699 this court was appellate only, but in that 
year its nature was altered. It was renamed the pro- 
vincial court, and was to be composed of three judges, 
to be chosen by the house of representatives and one or 
more of the justices of each county. It was to be held 
twice a year in each county, and was to have original as 
well as appellate jurisdiction where more than £20 was 
concerned. Appeal lay to the general assembly, a proof 
that the original political ideas of the Friends had not 
yet lost their vitality.-' 

In 1693 there was created for the first time a tribunal 

' Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 509. "^ Ibid., p. 448. 

^ Ibid., p. 517. ^ Ibid., p. 563 et seq. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 461 

with capital jurisdiction. This was a court of oyer and 
terminer, consisting of a judge named by the governor 
and council, aided by two or more justices of the county 
where the crime was committed.' Even this court, how- 
ever, could not inflict the death penally. Persons found 
guilty of treason or murder were to be turned over to 
the general assembly which was to give sentence.^ 

No traces of a court of equity are to be found in West 
Jersey. 

Such, briefly speaking, were the systems of courts ex- 
isting in the Jerseys when the royal government was 
established. Cornbury's commission, as we have already 
seen, gave him the power to establish all necessary courts 
both of law and equity, to name all judges, justices of the 
peace and other judicial officers, and to grant reprieves 
until the pleasure of the Crown could be learned in all 
cases but those of treason and wilful murder.- These 
sweeping powers were in one respect actually enlarged 
by the instructions which gave to the governor and 
council the right to regulate all salaries and fees, though 
these were required to be in moderation. ■♦ 

The instructions, however, put upon the governor's 
control certain great limitations. To prevent arbitrary 
removals the commissions of all judges and justices issued 
by the consent of the council were to be unlimited in 
time. No such ofificer was to be removed without good 
cause signified to the Crown and to the Board of Trade. 
Nor was Cornbury himself to undertake the execution of 
any such ofBce or to allow anyone else to do so by 
deputy. s The limitation, however, which had the most 

'Learning and Spicer, op. cit., p. 520. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 292. '^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 495. 

*Ibid., vol. ii, p. 521. ^Ibid., vol. ii, p. 518. 



462 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



immediate importance was that forbidding the governor, 
in spite of the legal power given, to erect without order 
from the Crown' any court or office of judicature not 
previously existing. A list of all such already existing 
was to be sent home with all speed. ^ 

The reconstitution of the provincial courts was one of 
the first problems to receive the attention of Cornbury's 
administration, and its solution in an admirable manner 
was, as has been elsewhere stated, one of the very few 
important services rendered by his government to the 
Jerseys. In 1704 was issued, upon the authority of the 
governor and council, "An Ordinance for Establishing 
Courts of Judicature." 3 We know that this subject had 
been considered more or less fully in the meetings of the 
council,'* though unfortunately we shall probably never 
know positively who was the real author of the ordi- 
nance. There seems every reason to believe, however, 
that it was the work of Roger Mompesson, Cornbury's 
chief justice, who alone in the council possessed the 
necessary legal training. s Cornbury probably did no 
more than issue the ordinance on his responsibility. 

The ordinance of 1704, while retaining essentially the 
existing courts, reorganized and recombined them in an 
excellent manner. The justices of the peace were to 
have cognizance of all cases of debt and trespass up to 
forty shillings. But there was to be a right of appeal to 
the next court of sessions in all cases above twenty shil- 
lings. In the justices' court causes were to be deter- 
mined without jury. It was next ordered that a court of 
Common Pleas be held in every county at the place 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 520. '^Ibid., vol. ii, p. 521. 

^ Field, Provincial Courts of Neiv Jersey, appendix C, p. 256. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 303-5. 
•'•Field, op. cit., p. 50. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



463 



where the general court of sessions was held, to begin 
immediately after the sessions had ended. The court of 
Common Pleas was to have power to try all actions tri- 
able at common law. Actions might, however, be ap- 
pealed or removed to the Supreme Court if they involved 
£10 or if the title to land was an issue. The courts of 
general sessions were to be held four times a year in 
each of the other counties, but three times in Cape May. 
Each session was to continue not exceeding two days. 
These courts were to meet at Perth Amboy for the 
county of Middlesex, at Bergen for Bergen, at Newark 
for Essex, at Shrewsbury for Monmouth, at Burlington 
for Burlington, at Gloucester for Gloucester, at Salem for 
Salem, and at the house of Shamgar Hand for Cape May. 

The system was completed by the institution of a 
supreme court. This was to sit alternately at Perth 
Amboy and Burlington. It was to meet at Amboy the 
first Tuesday in May, and at Burlington the first Tues- 
day in November, but sessions were not to continue 
more than five days. The Supreme Court was to have 
cognizance of all pleas civil, criminal, and mixed as fully 
as the courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and 
Exchequer in England. Actions might be begun there 
if they were for over £10. 

The ordinance further stated that one of the justices 
of the Supreme Court might, if need be, go the circuit 
and keep the supreme courts for the various counties at 
prescribed dates. Such justice was to be assisted on the 
circuit by two or more justices of the peace in each 
county. 

The conservative and well arranged system thus de- 
vised endured without serious change during the entire 
colonial period, and indeed forms the basis of the ar- 
rangements which still exist. 



464 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



The courts were soon put into operation by the com- 
missioning of the requisite officers: a chief justice, a 
second judge, several associate judges, judges of the 
pleas for the counties, and justices of the peace.' At 
the beginning many irregularities in the practice of 
the courts naturally appeared and the conduct of the 
clique which surrounded Cornbury almost at once 
converted the tribunals of the colony into engines of 
injustice.^ These abuses we shall examine later. The 
system as such was, however, an immediate success with 
the exception of the provision for sending a justice of 
the supreme court on the circuit. This clause appears 
from the beginning to have been ineffective. 

There were, however, certain features in the judicial 
system of New Jersey which were not founded upon 
Cornbury's ordinance. As in the case of all the royal 
provinces the governor's instructions expressly gave to 
the inhabitants the right of appeal in case of error from 
the highest provincial court to the governor and coun- 
cil, which body thus became a part of the judicial sys- 
tem. But in such case those members of the coun- 
cil who were judges in the lower court from which 
the appeal was taken were not to vote, though they 
might be present to explain their decisions. If the case 
at issue exceeded £200 sterling, further appeal might be 
made to the Queen in council. ^ 

The royal commission had also given Cornbury the 
right to appoint, when necessary, commissioners of oyer 
and terminer for the trial of criminal cases, a power of 
which all the governors made use when occasion re- 
quired."* 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, pp. 23, 40, 41, passim. 

'Field, op. cit.y p. 52 (note). 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 531. ''Ibid., vol. ii, p. 495. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 46- 

Cornbury in addition issued in 1705, by and with the 
advice of his council, an ordinance for the estabhshment 
of a high court of chancery for the purpose of giving re- 
lief in cases where the strictness of the rules of common 
law made such action necessary.' The court of chancery 
was to consist of the governor ?.nd lieutenent-governcr 
for the time being and any three of the council. They 
were to act as nearly as might be in conformity with the 
usages of the high court of chancery in England, and 
were to hold four stated terms each year. The court 
was to be open on Thursday of each week at Burlington 
to hear motions and make rules and orders thereon. 
Though the question of chancery jurisdiction was a mat- 
ter fought over with great bitterness in New York and 
other colonies, the erection of the court seems to have 
aroused little attention in the Jerseys, and its work dur- 
ing the earlier part of the union peiiod seems to have 
been of no great importance. 

The wide control held by the governor over the judi- 
cial system was certainly one of the matters which 
aroused especially the jealousy of the assembly. In 
spite, however, of the bitter protests made by the repre- 
sentatives, both in the remonstrance of 1707 and else- 
where, against the miscarriage of justice in the courts 
under Cornbury, Mompesson and Pinhorne,' the legisla- 
lature was naturally unable to pass any laws altering the 
judicial system materially until the accession of Hunter. 
The only act relating directly to courts passed before 
Hunter's arrival was that of 1704 " for Reviving and Con- 
tinuing the Courts of Quarter Sessions and Common 
Pleas in Bergen, Middlesex and Monmouth Counties."' 

^ Liber AAA of Comvtissions, p. 66; Field, op. cit., p. 113. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 174 et seq., 244 ei seg., 374 et seq. 

^ Laws Enacted in 1704 (Bradford print). 



^66 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

The holding of these courts had been prevented by the 
attendance of the judges and justices upon the meeting 
of the assembly, and the object of the act was to con- 
tinue all suits in them in the same status as before. But 
even this law was disallowed by the Crown, along with 
all the others passed by the second assem.bly, although 
in later administrations several similar laws were carried 
and allowed to stand. 

With the arrival of Hunter, however, there was a 
change, and when in 1713 that governor at length met 
the assembly with a council over which he had control, 
the colonial legislature proceeded to pass several laws of 
importance relating to the courts. These laws, it is true, 
concerned legal practice rather than the structure of the 
courts, yet it is convenient to mention them at this point. 
Their general object was, of course, to prevent the abuses 
of justice which had so disgraced the province under 
Cornbury. An act for preventing corruption in the 
courts of justice declared all laws existing in England 
against bribery and corruption in the courts in force in 
New Jersey. Further, any judge determining a cause in 
a lower court who should sit in judgment thereupon in 
a superior tribunal was to forfeit £40. Another act 
was intended to prevent " Malicious Prosecutions by 
Information." This law ordained that no person should 
be tried upon information unless by an order of the gov- 
ernor signed in the council. The person accused was to 
be brought to trial at the second court after such infor- 
mation was filed or else discharged. Any person acquitted 
on such trial was not to pay fees, and if the attorney- 
general or any one else violated the statute the fine 
was to be £50. A third act was "for Ascertaining 
the Qualifications of Jurors." ' This law enacted that all 
' Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 467 

grand and petit jurors were to be summoned by the 
sheriflf or his deputy, or, in case either were concerned, 
by the coroner of the county. Jurors were to be of 
good fame and freeholders of the county for which they 
served. All grand jurors must possess at least £100 
in real estate in the county, and petit jurors £100 in real 
or personal estate. A fourth most important law of the 
same session made the solemn affirmation and declaration 
of the people called Quakers acceptable instead of an oath 
in the usual form, and qualified them especially to serve 
as jurors.' This was a most necessary piece of legisla- 
tion, and would have been enacted long before if Corn- 
bury and Ingoldsby had not been deliberately false to 
the spirit of their instructions. 

Another measure carried through was entitled " An 
Act for Shortening of Lawsuits and Regulating the 
Practice of the Law."'' This was a lengthy act, which 
endeavored to prevent the virtual defeating of justice 
through the intentional spinning out of suits by impos- 
ing time limits for the trial of cases and the carrying out 
of other legal procedure. Theoretically, it was no doubt 
open to grave objections, though it was probably well 
suited to the circumstances of a frontier community. 
" An Act for Acknowledging and Recording of Deeds 
and Conveyances of Land within each respective County 
of the Province," 3 provided for the witnessing of trans- 
fers of land before the judges and justices of the re- 
spective counties and the recording of such transfers by 
the clerk of the pleas. This measure was intended to 
save the people from the expense of making long journeys 
to Amboy or Burlington to record titles, but it injured 

^ Laws Enacted in 1713 (Bradford print) . 
^AUinson, op. cit. '^ Ibid. 



468 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the secretary of the province in spite of the provision 
that all titles recorded with him were to be legal as here- 
tofore. " An Act for Enforcing the Observation of the 
Ordinance for Establishing Fees within this Province," ' 
not only enforced under penalty of £50 the said fees and 
no other, but also enacted that attorneys who split cases 
so as to obtain more actions or in any other way initiated 
unnecessary procedure, should have no more fees than 
for a single action. 

All of these acts, except possibly that for "Shorten- 
ing" lawsuits, seem to have been of a proper character, 
and indeed highly desirable after the gross abuses of 
Cornbury's time. But James Smith, the provincial secre- 
tary, finding that the emoluments of his office were 
greatly reduced by the law "shortening" lawsuits, that 
regarding deeds, and that enforcing the ordinance of 
fees, memorialized the lords of trade upon the subject.* 
The lords sought to obtain satisfaction for Smith from 
the assembly itself through Governor Burnet. ^ But 
when the representatives refused to restore the fees the 
acts in question were eventually disallowed by the 
Crown."* The action of the home authorities in thus 
deliberately sacrificing the well-matured desires of the 
colonial legislature to the plea of a single royal official 
seems, to say the least, most ill-advised. 

The legislation discussed shows at the same time 
the interest taken by the assembly of the colony in the 
judicial system, and the extent to which it interfered 
with its work. The actual constitution of the courts 
was, however, always under the control of the governor 

'AUinson, op. cit. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 225. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv,, p. 226. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 240. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



469 



alone. In 1714 Hunter issued a new ordinance for the 
establishment of the courts.' But its provisions were 
identical with those of the original ordinance of Corn- 
bury and Mompesson, except on one or two matters of 
detail. This ordinance expressly forbade the county 
justices from trying cases in which title to land was con- 
cerned, a provision highly proper when one considers 
the political importance of the land question. It was 
also ordered that henceforth appeals should not be taken 
from the county courts to the supreme court unless 
they involved £20 instead of £10 as formerly. The 
ofifice of the supreme court was to be kept in future by 
the clerk or his sufficient deputy at both Amboy and 
Burlington under penalty of deposition and such other 
fines as the law could inflict. This change was to 
remedy a grievance hotly advanced by the assembly in 
1707. The only other changes were in the time of hold- 
ing some of the sessions. 

But there was one important change made in the 
courts by Hunter. This was with regard to the chan- 
cery. Being out of sympathy during the earlier part 
of his rule with most of the members of his council, 
Hunter asserted the power clearly given in his instruc- 
tions to exercise the powers of chancellor alone.' Natur- 
ally his action was made one of the points of attacks by 
Coxe and the party of opposition." But Hunter's course 
was approved by the home government and, although 
no new ordinance for the chancery was issued, the gov- 
ernor continued to act as chancellor till 1770. The 

' Field, Proz'ij!cial Courts of New Jersey, appendix D, p. 263. Hunter 
said that personally he was very ignorant of law matters, having never 
been concerned in a suit. 

"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 70, 114, 198; Field, op. cii., p. 114. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 205. 



470 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

change, however, undoubtedly made the chancery more 
unpopular. 

Under Governor Burnet there were further changes, 
though not of a very sweeping character. In April, 
1723, there was issued an ordinance for altering and reg- 
ulating the times of the sitting of the courts.^ This 
ordinance, however, embodied some of the provisions 
of the disallowed acts of 1713. It further led to a 
protest from the assembly, who represented that it 
still held the people of the province under the incon- 
venience of journeying from distant points to Amboy 
and Burlington for comparatively trifling matters.^ The 
representatives desired leave to prepare a bill to remove 
the difficulties, but to this procedure the governor and 
council would not consent.^ The latter nevertheless 
named a committee to look into the inconveniences in- 
volved. 

A little later the assembly presented another address 
relating to the judicial system.'^ This address called the 
attention of the governor to the disadvantages of having 
a chief justice who did not reside in the province and 
laid emphasis upon the injustice of compelling persons 
to journey from remote parts of the Jerseys to New York 
for the sake of giving bail or obtaining a writ. The 
house immediately after voted that £100 extra should be 
paid to a chief justice who would ride the circuit. ^ This 
action by the representatives led to the superseding of 
Chief Justice Jamison by William Trent. 

A further result was the issuing by Burnet of " An 
Ordinance of George II," reconstituting the courts.* 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 344. "^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 251. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 252. ^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 255. 

^Assembly Journal, Nov. 2^, 1723. 
'Field, op. cit., appendix E, p. 269. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



4/1 



The new ordinance, of course, retained the leading pro- 
visions of those of 1704 and 1714. It, however, allowed 
appeals from the justices' court to the general sessions 
in all cases over ten shillings. It was also provided that 
any two judges of the supreme court (the chief justice 
always to be one) should have power to commission 
suitable persons in each county to receive bail from per- 
sons concerned in actions or suits before the Supreme 
Court. Such recognizance was then to be transmitted 
to some judge of the Supreme Court, and by him re- 
ceived upon payment of the usual fees. Further, the 
chief justice or other justice of the Supreme Court 
was every year to go into each county except Bergen 
and Cape May to try all cases coming before the Supreme 
Court, judgment to be given at the next Supreme Court 
held at Amboy or Burlington after such verdict as was 
given in the counties. The high sheriff, justices of the 
peace, the mayor and aldermen of any corporations 
within the county, and all officers of the court, were to 
attend the chief justice while within the county on penalty 
of prosecution. 

The ordinance of 1724 was superseded by still another 
the next year.' This however was hardly more than a 
verbal repetition. The only important alteration was 
the extension of the circuit to all the counties but Cape 
May. In February, 1728, came the last ordinance of 
Burnet, and indeed of the union period for the constitu- 
tion of the courts.^ It was now ordained that hence- 
forth there should be two supreme courts, one to sit at 
Amboy, the other at Burlington. That at Burlington 
was to meet in May, August, November and February, 
and that at Amboy in the same months but at different 

'Field, op. cit., appendix F, p. 281. *Ibid.. appendix G, p. 292. 



472 T^HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

dates. The courts were to sit five days, but all trials 
and returns of juries were to be nicoe cnly in the May 
and November terms. The August and February terms 
were to be for the returns of writs and for other law 
proceedings. Except for this important change the 
ordinance of 1728 followed that of 1724. 

Governor Burnet was especially fond of his chancery 
jurisdiction, and in 1724 issued the first ordinance for 
the regulation of fees in chancery.' These fees are re- 
garded by Judge Field as most liberal though at the 
time they seem to have caused complaint.^ Governor 
Montgomerie, unlike his predecessor, was opposed to 
the chancery court, and avoided exercising his powers 
as chancellor whenever possible. Under him, in 1730, a 
committee of the council was appointed to revise and 
moderate the fees, so as to make them conformable 
to the circumstances of the province. The committee 
was also charged with examining into the abuses which 
had grown up in the practice of the court. ^ In due 
time it reported proposing certain amendments to the 
former ordinances intended to expedite the proceedings 
of the chancery and to cut down the expenses of suits. 
The result was the issuing of a new ordinance by the 
governor and council embodying the suggestions of the 
council."* 

Under Burnet, Montgomerie and Cosby several laws 
were passed regarding judicial practice. But most of 
these offer to the historical student little of interest. 
Such were an act for preventing multiplicity of lawsuits 
of 1722,5 an act for the limitation of actions and for 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 276. 'Field, op. cit., p. 114. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 432. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. ^553. 
^Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



473 



avoiding suits in law of 1728/ and an act prescribing 
the forms of declaration, the effect of the abjuration oath 
and affirmation instead of the forms hitherto required in 
such cases, etc.,^ passed at the same session. 

Three of these later laws may, however, receive a little 
more notice. In the last session under Burnet there was 
passed an act for preventing malicious prosecutions on 
indictments and other suits of the Crown and rectifying 
sundry abuses in the proceedings thereon. ^ This enacted 
that in all cases where persons tried on indictments were 
found innocent they should be discharged from all costs 
whatever, any usage to the contrary notwithstanding. 
It was also declared that where several persons were in- 
dicted for an offense and found guilty the costs should 
not be taxed against each severally but against all, and 
should not amount to more than the cost of the suit 
against one particular person. In the same session an- 
other act was passed ''Concerning the Acknowledging 
and Registering Deeds and Conveyances of Land."'* This 
statute contained all the chief provisions of the disallowed 
act of 171 3 for the recording of deeds by the county 
clerks. It also contained provisions intended to prevent 
errors in the recording of proprietary lands. Another 
act for " the Shortening of Lawsuits and Regulating the 
practice and Practioners of the Law " was an effort, like 
the similar law of Hunter's time, to fix the time within 
which issues at law must be joined and trials held.^ Both 

'Allin5on, op. cit. This law declared that all statutes in fcrce in 
Great Britain regarding the limitation cf actions should also be in force 
in the colony. 

"Ibid. This last was a highly necessary act for further ease of the 
Quakers. 

^Ibid. *Ibid. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 471-3. This action was taken 
after further memorializing by James Smith. 



474 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



these laws were again disallowed by the Crown in Novem- 
ber, 1 73 1. 

Finally, in 1733 under Cosby we have another act "for 
the better enforcing an Ordinance made for Establishing 
of Fees and for Regulating the Practice of the Law." ' 
The object of this measure was to reduce the cost of cases 
by cutting down the fees where possible. It was even 
claimed that the act in several cases actually lowered the 
fees established by the ordinance. The act also made 
changes in the procedure of the courts which were believed 
by the opponents of the assembly to be in the interest of 
the debtor class and to entail hardship upon all credi- 
tors.^ The law did contain, however, the wholesome pro- 
vision that none should be admitted as attorneys who 
were not skilled in the law, having either served an ap- 
prenticeship of seven years to an able licensed attorney 
or studied law at least four years after becoming of age. 
In any case the measure did little harm, for it was disal- 
lowed by the Crown in 1735.^ 

It is thus to be seen that, in spite of its efforts, the as- 
sembly did not meet with complete success in its attempt 
to regulate the courts. The legislation of Hunter's time 
against the great abuses of Cornbury and his ring was 
undoubtedly salutary. But the credit for the inaugura- 
tion and development of the judicial system must go to 
the wise policy of the executives. The elaboration of so 
excellent a system was certainly a meritorious work, 

^ A'ezf Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 377. 

*Mr. Fane said that the act really meant: "We will pay no law fees, 
we will have no lawyers, we will pay no custom house fees, neither will 
we pay any debts. But we'll punish every man that shall pretend to 
sue for his own;" New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 393. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 515. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



475 



though it was of course much simpHfied by the examples 
of neighboring colonies. But of more importance was 
the actual administration of justice through the courts. 
To this topic we must now turn our attention. 

Nowhere perhaps was the influence of the several royal 
governors more directly shown than in their appoint- 
ments to high judicial positions. The first chief justice 
of New Jersey was Roger Mompesson. Mompesson had 
been a lawyer of some eminence in England, having 
served as recorder of Southampton and as a member of 
two parliaments. He had arrived only a short time before 
in America, whither he had come " to ease his fortune of 
some of his father's debts he was unwarily engaged for." 
But though recommended by William Penn for high of^ce 
in Pennsylvania, Mompesson was disappointed in obtain- 
ing advancement there. He was, however, soon made 
chief justice of both New York and New Jersey by Lord 
Cornbury, of whose father, the Earl of Clarendon, he 
had been a favorite. 

Mompesson became Cornbury's chief adviser in all 
matters of law, and was soon made a member of the 
governor's council. In the high stations held by him 
his record is most discreditable, as under his guid- 
ance the courts became engines of an arbitrary tyranny. 
Mompesson did indeed render the province a service by 
the skill with which he constituted the courts. But aside 
from this, the best that can be said of him is that he 
acted rather as the subservient tool of Cornbury than on 
his own initiative, and that when brought to task under 
Lovelace and Hunter he showed himself somewhat less 
resolute than other members of Cornbury's ring.' 

Of Mompesson's private life and character little is 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 2>7y> vol. iv, p. 70. 



476 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



known. He became the son-in-law of William Pinhorne, 
the second judge, with whose later career his own was 
closely connected/ 

William Pinhorne, unlike Mompesson was not bred to 
the law, but had originally been a merchant in New 
York. In that colony he had already taken a prominent 
part in public affairs. Pinhorne had been a member of 
Governor Sloughter's council when Leisler was ex- 
ecuted, and continued to hold that position until 1698 
when, on the overthrow of his party, he was suspended 
from his offices and found it wise to retire to New Jer- 
sey. In the latter province he was proprietor of an 
extensive estate between the Hackensack and Passaic 
Rivers at Snake Hill then known as Mount Pinhorne. 
Like Mompesson he was a member of Lord Cornbury's 
council,'' and seems to have been equally guilty with the 
other members of maladministration. As a judge he 
was no better than Mompesson, and was guilty espec- 
ially of denying the writ of habeas corpus to Thomas 
Gordon, the speaker of the assembly.^ 

The first attorney-general of the royal province was 
Alexander Griffith, "that vile fellow Griffith," as Hunter 
termed him,"* who is remembered chieflly for the cam- 
paign of prosecutions upon information which he directed 
against all who opposed Cornbury. The clerk of the 
Supreme Court was Jeremiah Basse, secretary of the 
province whose career calls for no further description 
here. 

'Field, Provhicial Courts of New Jersey, pp. 56-61; New Jersey 
Archives, vol. iii, p. 116 (note 2). 

* During the suspension of Morris he was president of the council. 

^ Field, op. cit., p. y^ et seq.; New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 299 
(note). 
*^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 209. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



477 



Upon the arrival of Lovelace, Mompesson voluntarily 
retired, and was succeeded as chief justice by Thomas 
Gordon, the very man who had suffered most severely 
from the tyranny of the courts. Gordon's power was 
not for long, however, as upon the death of Lovelace 
and the accession of Ingoldsby, Mompesson and Pin- 
horne were restored to power.' 

But the arrival of Hunter meant a permanent change 
in the personnel of the courts. Hunter's selection for 
the post of chief justice was David Jamison, a Scot by 
birth and a resident of New York, where he was recog- 
nized as an able lawyer. He had been clerk of the 
council of New York under Fletcher, but was removed 
by Bellomont, who made against him astonishing charges 
of atheism and bigamy. Later, however, Jamison was 
restored to his offtce by Bellomont himself, and in 1699 
was one of the vestry of Trinity Church. The new 
chief justice of the Jerseys had distinguished himself by 
his brave defense of McKemie, the Presbyterian clergy- 
man, against Cornbury, and the only serious objection 
to his appointment was that he remained a resident of 
New York. Jamison's administration of the courts 
seems to have been both capable and upright. After his 
retirement under Burnet, he held the important post of 
attorney general of New York.'^ 

The associate justice was Thomas Farmar, who had 
previously held the post of collector of the customs at 
Perth Amboy, whither he had removed from Staten 
Island in 171 1. Farmar was during several assemblies 
the representative of Middlesex in the assembly and had 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 500. 

^ Field, op. cit., p. 91 et seq.; Whitehead, Contributions to the Early 
History of Perth Amboy, pp. 38, 40. 



478 T^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

taken an active part in the proceedings as a member of 
the proprietary party. He continued to act as repre- 
sentative while on the bench. Farmar held the post of 
second judge for many years, and eventually in 1728 be- 
came chief justice. He was superseded, however, in 
1729, possibly because of the insanity from which he is 
known to have suffered before his death.' Farmar's son, 
under the name of Christopher Billop, was the prominent 
leader of the loyalists in Staten Island and vicinity during 
the Revolution.'' 

In 1 71 3, upon the suspension of Griffith from the at- 
torney-generalship, Thomas Gordon was named by 
Hunter as "commissioner" for executing that office. 
In the first year of George I he was regularly com- 
missioned as attorney general. In 1719, while his old 
enemy Hunter was still in power, Jeremiah Basse re- 
ceived the governor's commission for the office, and 
closed his checkered career by respectable service to 
the province. 

The appointees of Hunter remained in office during 
the earlier part of Burnet's administration. ^ But in 1723 
the eighth assembly addressed Burnet to name a chief 
justice resident in the province, and who would ride the 
circuit. This address, however, contained no complaint 
against Jamison's administration of the post. The gov- 
ernor wisely decided to gratify the assembly, and ap- 
pointed as chief justice William Trent, at that time 
speaker. Trent, like Farmar, was not a lawyer by pro- 
fession. He was a native of Inverness, Scotland, but 

' Such is the suggestion of Field. In 1735, however, Farmar was 
named as a member of the council by Governor Cosby; New Jersey 
Archives, vol. xiv, p. 516. 

^ Field, op. cit., p. 126 et seq.; Whitehead, op. cit., p. 92. 

•^In 1 721 Peter Bard was second judge. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



479 



had long been a resident of Philadelphia, where he had 
been a most successful merchant. For many years he 
had been judge of the supreme court of Pennsylvania 
and speaker of the assembly, so that he had had long 
judicial experience. In 1714 he purchased Mahlon 
Stacy's plantation of eight hundred acres on the Assan- 
pink Creek, where the city of Trenton now stands, and 
soon became a resident of New Jersey. In 1721 he was 
elected as representative to the assembly from Burlington 
County, and in 1723 was chosen speaker. William Trent 
did not live, however, to enjoy the post of chief justice 
long, as he died in 1724, only a few months after taking 
his seat. The terms of respect with which he is always 
mentioned by his contemporaries indicate that he was a 
man of high character and strong personality, and that 
his death was a distinct loss.' 

His successor was Robert Lettice Hooper, who had 
also been prominent in the assembly, though he had 
taken no leading part in the politics of the colony.^ 
Hooper's reputation was made in his judicial office, 
as his administration was creditable and satisfactory, 
though unmarked by striking occurrences. He pre- 
sided, however, over the trial of the highly important 
Schuyler case in 1733, in which a notable victory was 
won for the associates of Elizabethtown against the pro- 
prietors. Hooper continued as chief justice during the 
remainder of the union period. His tenure was, how- 
ever, interrupted in 1728 by the appointment of Thomas 
Farmar as his successor. Why Burnet took this peculiar 
step is not known. In the very next year Hooper was 
restored. 3 

' Field, op. cit., p. 105 et seq.; New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. T] . 
* Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, pp. 126, 129. 
'^Ibid., p. 128. 



^^8o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

In 1734, under Cosby, another notable appointment 
was made. This was that of Col. Daniel Coxe as second 
judge.' Like Basse this leader of the opposition to 
Hunter had at length made his peace with the chief ex- 
ecutive. Coxe had resumed a prominent place in the 
affairs of the colony under Burnet and had, in spite of 
his bad reputation as a supporter of Cornbury, shown 
himself worthy of further trust. His record on the 
bench was creditable. 

The successors of Basse as attorney-general were 
James Alexander, whose notable career is elsewhere de- 
scribed, Lawrence Smyth and Joseph Worrell. 

The examination of the provincial courts of New 
Jersey in action is certainly one of the most instructive 
chapters in the political history of the colony. We are 
to consider in this field a condition of things so different 
from that of our own time as to be realized only by some 
effort of the historical imagination. Yet an understand- 
ing of this topic is essential to a knowledge of the true 
political issues of the province. 

The courts under Cornbury were undoubtedly engines 
of despotism. Even after this lapse of time no milder 
term could be justified. The complete control by the 
executive over the judicial system, arising especially from 
the power of the governor to appoint the judges and 
justices, made it difficult indeed for the people of the 
province to meet this species of oppression. Of all the 
powerful weapons in the hands of the corrupt governor 
and his clique this control over the courts was perhaps 
the most effective and was employed with the most com- 
plete lack of scruple. 

Nor did this aspect of the courts take long in develop- 

' Field, op. cit., p. 132 et seq. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 481 

ing. The first session of the Supreme Court which was 
held at Burlington in November, 1704, was indeed not 
productive of important results. The chief justice and 
the second judge took their seats and a grand jury was 
returned by the sheriff of Burlington County, but no in- 
dictments v^'ere found and no civil suits were ready for 
trial. The chief business was the admission of several 
attorneys, among whom were John Moore, May Bickley 
and Thomas Gordon.' 

But in the May term of 1704, held also irregularly it 
would appear at Burlington, the courts began their 
interference in politics. Much bitterness and criticism 
had naturally been aroused by the governor's attitude 
toward the first assembly, and the governor's henchmen 
on the bench at once made the courts the upholders of 
his excellency's conduct. Three rather well-known per- 
sons were arraigned before the grand jury for uttering 
seditious words regarding Cornbury. These were John 
Hollingshead of Rancocas Creek, one of the earliest 
settlers in Burlington County, Walter Pumphrey of Bur- 
lington Town, and Jedediah Allen of Shrewsbury, Mon- 
mouth County, himself a member of the first assembly.^ 
Hollingshead was accused of declaring "that the gov- 
ernor had dissolved the assembly, but that they could 
get another just as good, and if the governor liked them 
not, he might go whence he came." Allen had made 
the heinous assertion "that Col. Morris was dismissed 
from being of the council by my Lord, but that it was 
more than my Lord had power to Doe."'' But the 
grand jury in spite of these terrible charges bravely 
refused to find indictments. The governor and his 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court (i 704-171 5), p. i. 
*Tbid., pp. 7, 8, 9. 



482 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



clique, however, were not to be thus balked, and accord- 
ingly the attorney general was instructed to appl}^ to the 
court for leave to file informations. This permission 
was at once given and the informations drawn up.' 

The defendants all pleaded not guilty. Hollingshead, 
whose case was the first to come up, moved to postpone 
his trial until the following term. This was allowed, 
providing he would put in an issuable plea, thus admit- 
ting the suf^ciency of the information. The court, 
therefore, ordered that he should enter into a recogni- 
zance to appear at the next term to put in an issuable 
plea, and to keep the peace meanwhile. But Hollings- 
head refused to do this, and the court then committed 
him for contempt and "for abusing the witnesses of her 
Majesty." At the next term Hollingshead was tried and 
acquitted, but the court refused to discharge him until 
he had paid all the costs. ^ He vv^as accordingly con- 
tinued on recognizance till next term, and this was 
regularly renewed until the May term of 1707, when he 
was at length discharged. ^ 

Walter Pumphrey adopted a bolder course, agreeing 
to go to trial at once. He would, however, neither em- 
ploy counsel nor submit any evidence. The jury was 
therefore obliged to bring him in guilty, but the court 
nevertheless did not pronounce judgment, doubtless 
fearing popular indignation. Pumphrey was instead put 
on recognizance to appear from term to term, and after 
several renewals forfeited his recognizance, as Field be- 
lieves with the understanding that no further proceed- 
ings would be brought.'* 

'Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, p. 54. Field bases his ac- 
count directly upon the court record. 
'Ibid., pp. 55-56. 

'^Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), p. Z7- 
* Field, op. cit., pp. 55, 56. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



483 



The case of Allen apparently never came to trial. 
But after the court had caused him all the annoyance 
and expense possible the proceedings were discontinued.' 

These three cases were an ominous beginning of the 
work of the royal courts. For a brief space there ap- 
pears to have been a suspension of hostilities. But it 
was not for long. In the May term of 1707, Thomas 
Killingwortli, of Salem, was tried upon two inform.ations 
for speaking slanderously against the Church of England, 
declaring it '* a carnal church," and using other un- 
seemly words. He was, however, acquitted.' 

As the struggle between Cornbury's ring and the pro- 
prietary leaders became intensified, the servile courts 
grew more active. Informations were filed upon var- 
ious pretexts against many of those prominent in the 
proprietary interest. Capt. Harrison, Dr. Johnstone, 
and George Willocks, were thus prosecuted for " slan- 
derous words against the chief justice." George Wil- 
locks, John Pike, and John Barclay, were accused of 
publishing a "libel" called "Forget and Forgive."' 
An information was brought against Thomas Gardiner 
for pretending to act as surveyor general of West Jersey 
without authority. Richard Wildgoose and seven other 
ex-constables of Burlington County were prosecuted for 
failure to make distresses on the Quakers under the 
militia act of 1704.^ 

But the court had learned from its experience, and in 
conducting these cases made no effort to bring them to 
trial or to secure convictions. The object of the confed- 
erates was to inflict punishment upon the opponents of 

' Field, op. cit., p. 56. 

'Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), pp. 48-50. 

'Ibid., p. 57. 



484 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

their policy of corruption by putting them on recog- 
nizance, and then spinning out their cases and compelling 
them to incur the trouble and expense of hiring counsel 
and making journeys to attend the court.' It is this 
aspect of the matter which makes the conduct of Mom- 
pesson, Pinhorne, Griffith, and the other judges and 
court officers so entirely unjustifiable. 

The court also used its power over attorneys to intimi- 
date the practitioners of the law from opposing the gov- 
ernor or the chief justice. When Capt, Harrison was 
under prosecution in 1708 he was obliged to move that 
counsel be obliged to plead for him as he had offered 
fees and none dared accept. Emmet and Regnier, the 
latter a hanger-on of the ring and clerk of the court, 
were ordered to represent him. The case finally went to 
the jury and he was acquitted.'' It is, indeed, a matter 
of much credit to the province that no jury, so far as the 
records of the Supreme Court show, ever brought in a 
verdict of guilty against a person on trial for contempt 
of the government under Cornbury unless the unavoid- 
able verdict against Pumphrey be regarded as an ex- 
ception. ^ 

Somewhat similar to the experience of Harrison was 
that of Thomas Turnbull who was accused of slandering 
Cornbury and whose case came up soon after. Turnbull 
also found it impossible to secure counsel. The court 
assigned him Jacob Regnier, who advised him to plead 
guilty and ask for mercy.'' When he did so he was 
ordered to go to Cornbury and beg his pardon and then 
to be committed to prison for three m.onths. 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 41. 

* Minutes of the Supreme Court (i 704-1 715), p. 49. 

* Field, op. cit., p. 56. 

*■ Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), p. 49. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM .gc 

But perhaps the proceedings in which the political 
motives of the judicial officers were most clearly exhibi- 
ted were those against Thomas Gordon, the prominent 
proprietary leader. As is shown more fully elsewhere, 
he was in 1703 commissioned as register by the proprie- 
tors of East Jersey. Cornbury, however, demanded as a 
part of his campaign against the proprietors that the 
records should be handed over to Basse, the secretary of 
the province. The order was served upon Gordon at 
Shrewsbury, but Gordon declined to answer it directly, 
stating that the records were at Amboy. He was, there- 
fore, at once arrested by the order of Andrew Bowne, a 
member of the council, and was held on excessive bail to 
answer before Cornbury and council in the following 
October. Before the council Gordon was much abused 
by Cornbury, but after various negotiations the records 
were finally delivered to Basse.' 

In February, 1706, writs were again issued for the ap- 
prehension of Gordon and he gave bail to appear before 
the supreme court. But soon afterward he was sus- 
pended by the court from practicing as an attorney with- 
out reason being entered. Even when in May, 1708, he 
appeared before the supreme court and was discharged, 
"nothing appearing against him," he was not restored 
to his position." At this point he was elected speaker 
of the third assembly, in the room of Samuel Jennings, 
who was ill, and bravely carried on the campaign against 
the governor which Morris and Jennings had so ably 
begun. -^ 

As a result he was arrested on the warrant of Corn- 

^New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 75 et seq. 
"^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 75 et seq. 
^Assembly Journal, May 5, 1708. 



486 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

bury himself, within half an hour after the adjournment 
of the assembly upon the same old charge. Gordon 
promptly applied for a writ of habeas corpus, but this was 
denied by Judge Pinhorne. The pretext was that such 
application must be made by counsel-at-law. Gordon 
was thereupon kept in prison for fifteen hours to his 
great discomfort and injury. At length he succeeded in 
engaging Capt. John Pinhorne, son of the judge, to act 
as his counsel, and paid him the required fees, though 
Gordon himself drew the writs. He thus secured his 
liberty upon bail, but was, of course, obliged to attend 
the next supreme court. Here he was again discharged. 
But though thus apparently cleared, his suspension from 
practicing law was not removed until the arrival of 
Lovelace.' 

Another case of miscarriage of justice, which attracted 
much attention, was that of Peter Blacksfield. This pro- 
ceeding appears to have been equally outrageous, though 
the motive back of it was not so evidently political. It 
appears that the said Blacksfield gave security for the 
appearance of one William Slooby, of Salem County, who 
was on trial before the Supreme Court for piracy, and 
Slooby failing to appear in the fall term of 1705, judgment 
was given against him by default and his recognizance 
forfeited. Blacksfield was thus ruined. But the parties 
involved maintained, apparently with truth, that no 
proper notice had been given Slooby that his appearance 
was required. Blacksfield, after further efforts to secure 
justice from the Supreme Court, endeavored to appeal to 
the superior authority of the governor and council. But 
that excellent body would take no cognizance of the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 40, 77. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 487 

appeal, and the erroneous decision therefore stood until 
the case was revived under other conditions.' 

Such tyrannical conduct was not, however, confined to 
the superior tribunals. Among those who suffered most 
in the county courts were no doubt the Quakers, who, in 
spite of the manifest intention of the royal instructions to 
have them put on an equality with other residents of the 
province, were excluded both from serving on juries and 
from giving evidence unless it suited the purpose of 
Cornbury's judges.^ 

But of all the corrupt persons who presided over 
justice in the local courts it was undoubtedly Peter 
Sonmans who caused the most complaints. A long list 
of charges was drawn up against his conduct as coun- 
cilor and justice by the assembly under Lovelace, the 
greater part of which related to abuses of justice. ^ 
Sonmans was accused of obtaining the arrest of John 
Barclay just as he was coming out of the church from 
the celebration of the sacrament, an act directly contrary 
to law. Fie was said to have forcibly seized the horse of 
one John Brown without assigning reason, and later to 
have caused Brown to be imprisoned for no offense. 
One Mellin, a tailor, was forced by him to fiee from the 
province because of a trivial and unjust charge made 
against him. Sonmans had refused to bind one Alex- 
ander Walker to keep the peace, although he had beaten 
his wife and threatened to murder his son-in-law. He 
had tried to browbeat and intimidate sheriffs and other 
officers. Worse than all, Sonmans had endeavored to 
pack juries, especially that before which John Harrison 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 358; vol. iv, pp. 42, 45; vol. xiii, 
p. 472. 
*Ibid., vol. iv, p. 42. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 374 et. seq. 



488 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

was to be tried upon an information. He offered in this 
case to secure eleven Dutch men who would " give little 
trouble." He was in addition accused of preventing 
those impanneled to serve on the grand jury of Middle- 
sex and Somerset from meeting, and then fining them 
for not doing so. 

Sonmans, who "did not lack abilities/' answered most 
of these charges in a statement to Lord Lovelace in a 
manner plausible, though not convincing.' The charges, 
however, are themselves so gross that the student can 
hardly accept them from Sonmans' bitter enemies as be- 
ing absolutely true. Making all due allowance, never- 
theless, for the motives of the assembly, we must con- 
clude that Sonmans had undoubtedly greatly abused his 
powers. 

A sudden stop was, of course, put to the corruption 
and injustice of the courts by the advent of Lovelace as 
Cornbury's successor. With Thomas Gordon, Lovelace's 
appointee as chief justice, the proprietary interest now 
felt itself strong enough to retaliate upon Cornbury's 
faction through the courts. Not only were Willocks and 
Barclay, who were still under prosecution, promptly re- 
leased, but indictments were found by grand juries 
against Peter Sonmans and Jeremiah Basse, the secretary 
who had again been guilty of many irregularities. Son- 
mans was indicted for perjury and adultery, while Basse 
was charged with perjury and forgery. Under the cir- 
cumstances, both of these worthies seemed sure of 
conviction.'' 

As we have seen elsewhere, a determined attack was 
also made by the fourth assembly against Ingoldsby, 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 416 et seq. 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), May Term, 1709. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



489 



Mompesson, Sonmans and other creatures of the late 
ofovernor, in which the abuses of the courts were to some 
extent exposed. 

But the sudden death of Lord Lovelace saved the 
guilty parties for the time being. Ingoldsby promptly 
reappointed Mompesson in place of the long-sufTering 
Gordon, and the old ring was restored to power. The 
immediate result was. of course, the clearing of both 
Basse and Sonmans, who were tried before juries which 
had been carefully packed in the fall term of 1709,' and 
the spring term of 1710 respectively.'' The opponents of 
the government evidently recognized the uselessness of 
the attempt to punish Sonmans, as no evidences at all 
were offered against him. The party in power neverthe- 
less retaliated by causing an information to be filed 
against Sonmans' rival, John Barclay, charging him 
with altering the records of the province. But he was 
not brought to immediate trial.^ 

Though the conduct of the Supreme Court was not so 
tyrannical under Ingoldsby as under Cornbury, many of 
the old abuses were revived, Basse especially being ac- 
cused of drawing up excessive bills of costs, of packing 
juries, and of other offences. '• But public indignation 
seems to have been especially directed against William 
Hall, a member of the council, and judge of the pleas of 
Salem. Hall was likewise accused of charging excessive 
fees. But the more serious charge was made that he had 
coerced certain persons of humble condition into binding 
themselves as indentured servants to his friends. Thus 
he was said to have forced Thomas Bartlett to bind himself 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court, op. cit., p. 75. 

"'Ibid., pp. 80-81. 

'•' Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 364. * If)id., vol. iv, p. 71. 



^go THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

to Simon Morgan and afterward to have threatened one 
Francis Godbolt and his wife with prosecution for burglary, 
unless they likewise indentured themselves. Godbolt was 
willing to bind himself but not his wife, but the justice 
was not satisfied and since they confessed their guilt 
committed them. Later, Hall was accused of selling 
Godbolt aboard a New England sloop, while retaining 
his wife as a servant. It was also said that Hall had 
taken possession of flour belonging to John Reeve, for 
which he refused to account.' 

Ingoldsby and his friends, however, did not have 
entire control of the fifth assembly, although it was in 
several respects favorable to them. This body received 
a petition from Peter Blacksfield, praying for the long- 
delayed justice.^ After an investigation the assembly 
came to the conclusion that the judgment of the court 
was an error and prepared a bill setting it aside and re- 
storing Blacksfield to his estate. ^ Naturally, however, 
this bill did not pass the council.'* 

Robert Hunter was not the man to tolerate such a 
condition of things as he found in the judicial system of 
the Jerseys. Yet, just as in the other departments, it 
cost him a hard struggle to remove the abuses. The 
same ring which was intrenched in his council was in- 
trenched in the courts, and though he at once super- 
seded Mompesson by Jamison, and Pinhorne by Col. 
Farmar, he did not thereby gain complete control. 
Attorney-General Griffith and Secretary Basse, as well as 
the clique in the council still remained. 

In January, 1710, at a meeting of the council, the case 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 79, 82. 

* Assembly Journal, Dec. 23, 1709. ''Ibid., Dec. 31, 1709. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 397. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 491 

of Peter Blacksfield was heard on appeal, in spite of the 
fact that a majority of the council were still of Corn- 
bury's party.' Blacksfield was represented by Gordon 
as counsel, and the attorney general was obliged to 
confess the errors, which he excused on the ground that 
the case had been agitated during his sickness. The 
decision was then reversed, and Blacksfield triumphantly 
restored to his estate. In the fall term of the Supreme 
Court for 1711 Barclay was also tried and acquitted. 

But this was a mere beginning of the political conflict 
in the courts. In the fall term of the Court for 171 5, 
held at Burlington, a grand jury was summoned with 
Peter Fretwell, the well-known Quaker, as foreman. 
Thereupon Basse, the clerk, absolutely refused to allow 
him to qualify by affirmation, taking the ground that an 
act of parliament of the first year of George I had ex- 
tended to America the act of the 7th and 8th of William 
which excluded Quakers from serving on juries and 
thereby repealed the provincial statute in their favor. 
The stand of the clerk was, of course, an attempt to 
keep the Quaker interest in West Jersey from obtaining 
recognition in the courts. As Basse, however, continued 
his refusal to obey the law of the province, he was de- 
clared in contempt and was directed by the court to 
name another to qualify the jury. He was also fined £20.- 

The struggle was now on, and the growing popular 
strength of the party of Coxe encouraged them to force 
the issue. Accordingly, in the spring of 1716, the grand 
jury of Burlington found an indictment against chief jus- 
tice Jamison for violating the act of parliament of the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 472. Hunter had advised the as- 
sembly not to proceed by legislation. 
^Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), pp. 147-8. 



492 'THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

first of George I by admitting a Quaker as juryman,' A 
similar indictment was found against Lewis Morris for 
admitting Quakers while acting as justice at the quarter 
sessions for Burlington.^ In reply to this step, however, 
Hunter issued an address to the public, which was vir- 
tually a proclamation declaring that the act of the assem- 
bly in favor of the Quakers was still in force. In the 
May term of 1716 Jamison delivered a speech to the 
court, in which he vindicated his position, and the court 
with Farmar, the second judge, presiding, then ordered 
the indictment quashed on the ground that it had been 
found against the chief justice for doing his duty.^ 

The court then turned upon the now helpless Basse 
and ordered that, since he had been "instrumental in 
sowing discord and sedition among divers of his Maj- 
esty's subjects within this province" and had aided 
especially in procuring the indictments, he should be 
forthwith suspended from practicing both in the Supreme 
Court and in all other courts in the province.'' This 
blow fell at about the same time as the rout of Coxe and 
his followers in the assembly and the resulting over- 
throw of their party in the province. 

The victory of the governor was now won. Griffith 
had some time before been suspended from the attorney- 
generalship,5 and a politician like Basse was not the man 
to continue a hopeless struggle against those who con- 
trolled the patronage. When, shortly afterward chosen 
a representative from Cape May, he became completely 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 236. 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 239. Gordon the attorney-general was also indicted 
for calling the act of parliament " a ballard." Ibid., vol. iv, p. 259. 
'^Minutes of the Supreme Court (Burlington, 1716-1731), p. 3. 
^ Ibid., p. 8. ^ Nerv Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 561. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



493 



reconciled with Hunter and lived to fill the attorney- 
generalship itself under both Hunter and Burnet. 

It must be admitted that Hunter used his control 
of the courts to jjood advantage. It is of course 
true that his appointees, Jamison and Farmar, were 
favorable to the proprietary interests and that while they 
were in office the opponents of the proprietary claims 
had little chance of success in legal proceedings. It is 
also true that the courts continued to be not unwilling 
to aid the governor by using their powers against politi- 
cal offenders. But, beginning with the ousting of Basse, 
the courts of the province certainly became respectable. 
Bribery and corruption on any large scale ceased. The 
persons named by Hunter and his successors to judicial 
ofTice were men of recognized standing and attainments. 
The courts henceforth rendered substantial justice and 
soon won the confidence of the people. The most 
gratefully remembered names of the latter part of the 
union period, William Trent, James Alexander, and 
John Kinsey, Jr., are those of persons prominently con- 
nected with the judicial system. In thus rescuing the 
courts Hunter performed one of the greatest of his 
many services to New Jersey. 

But when the courts turn their attention away from 
the conflicts of factions and occupy themselves with giv- 
ing private justice, they become less interesting to the 
student of political history. During the remainder of 
the union period we find ourselves chiefly attracted by 
the trial of certain officers accused of misconduct in 
office. But in most of these cases the disinterested 
character of the courts is illustrated. 

The first important effort to bring a public officer to 
justice through the courts was in the case of Peter Fau- 
connier, Cornbury's receiver-general. It will be remem- 



494 '^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

bered how Cornbury had refused to allow the General 
Assembly to examine his vouchers, thus nullifying their 
attempts to audit his accounts, and how in various ways 
he had escaped a reckoning under Lovelace and In- 
goldsby. Hunter, upon application from the assembly, 
however, submitted all the evidence relating to Fau- 
connier's administration. But the house after examina- 
tion found the accounts unsatisfactory, and addressed 
Hunter to have Fauconnier prosecuted.' The governor 
caused proceedings against him to be begun immedi- 
ately. In the spring term of 1711 his arrest was ordered 
by the Supreme Court, and the case was pushed as 
rapidly as was possible, with such an obstacle as Griffith 
in the attorney-generalship. Fauconnier entered a de- 
murrer against the jurisdiction of the court, thus raising 
a point of the utmost importance for the province. In 
August, 1713, argument upon the demurrer by counsel 
on both sides was heard at length by the court, and 
judgment was given for the Crown." Thus the account- 
ability of royal of^cers to the provincial courts was 
established. But though the proceedings against Fau- 
connier were continued, no final judgment against him 
appears to have been gained. It is probable that the 
object of the prosecution was to establish his accounta- 
bility and not actually to punish him. The assembly 
seems to have been satisfied by the result, ^ 

Another semJ-political prosecution of the period was 
that of Daniel Leeds, the former surveyor-general of 
West Jersey, who had rendered himself obnoxious be- 

"^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 25, 1710-11. 

'Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), p. 131. 

^In 1718 the assembly named a committee to examine into what had 
been done. They reported that the case was still pending and the house 
acquiesced. Assembly Journal, Feb, 10, n, 1718-19. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



495 



cause of his connection with Cornbury and Coxe, and 
his anta;.:onism to the Quaker interest in his division. 
His prosecution was ordered by the council on the 
ground that he had altered the book of surveys of West 
Jersey.' In 1716 he was tried before the Supreme Court 
at Burlington, but found not guilty.' 

In the well-known case of Thomas Gordon, treasurer 
of the province under Hunter, the court appears to sim- 
ilar good advantage. It has been previously stated that 
in 1 71 8 Gordon's accounts were found by the assembly 
to be unsatisfactory and he was accordingly allowed to 
resign from the treasurership. Considerable controversy 
resulted between the council and the house, the council 
believing that the lower house had been unjust.^ But 
the eighth assembly of 172 1-2, after another examination, 
declared that Gordon was indebted to the sum of £1070 
8s. 7d.* At the next session of 1723 the house actually 
prepared a bill for compelling the estate of Gordon, now 
deceased, to make good to the province all sums due.* 
But the governor and council refused to allow this mode 
of procedure, pointing out that the proper method was 
through the courts. The house, making a virtue of 
necessity, consented, and legal proceedings were begun 
by the attorney general.^ 

The case came up in the fall term of 1727, and the 
court proceeded to appoint a competent committee of 
auditors to audit the estate and accounts of Gordon. 

^ N^ezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 563. 

"•Minutes of the Supreme Court (Burlington, 1716-1731), pp. 4, 8. 
He was, however, reindicted and continued on his recognizance. 
^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiv, pp. iig-i2&. 
^Assembly Jo7ir7ial, April 27, 1722. 
'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 261. ^ Ibid,, vol. xiv, p. 302. 



496 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

The committee did this with all care, and revealed the 
fact that, while the accounts had been kept with apparent 
honesty of purpose, they contained certain errors due to 
the difiference between proclamation money and sterling 
valuation. It was found that the total sum due was only 
£1775. 2d. The court confirmed the report, and the 
estate promptly paid the amount due to the treasurer. 
Thus the difficulty was happily settled, and the memory 
of Thomas Gordon vindicated.' 

The last public prosecution of the union period of 
great political interest was that of Peter Sonmans, who 
under Burnet ventured to return to the province and to 
exercise his invalid commission as receiver general of the 
proprietary quit-rents. For so doing he was by order of 
the council prosecuted by the attorney general upon in- 
formation.^ The many enemies of Sonmans greatly de- 
sired his condemnation, and the evidence against him was 
so well established as to give little apparent chance for his 
escape. 3 But Sonmans was always a hard man to bring 
to justice. His case came to trial in November of 1728, 
and seems to have called forth more show of legal learn- 
ing, both on the part of the attorney general and of the 
defendant, than nearly any other trial of the period. "^ But 
the jury did not convict Sonmans directly, finding a 
special verdict. Sonmans was continued on his recog- 
nizance, and the proceedings against him were kept up 
until about 1732, when they appear to have been 
dropped. Thus he escaped serious damage. At the 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court (Perth Amboy, 1714-1731), p. 131. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 317. 
*Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 3ii-3i3> 3i5. Z^7- 

* Minutes of the Supreme Court (Perth Amboy, 1714-1731), p. 1431 
New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 202. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 4^7 

same time, however, his enemies had effectually elim- 
inated him as a force dangerous to the government and 
the proprietors. His difficulties were also increased by 
the bringing of sundry ejectment suits against him, in 
several of which he was worsted.' But in spite of all he 
was able to secure an election to the general assembly 
and to take a rather prominent part there. 

Aside from these political cases, interest is given to 
the proceedings of the courts during the latter half of 
the union period through certain important cases relating 
to the Elizabethtown tract. This issue was, after all, the 
most vital in the entire history of the province as the 
results of the cases clearly showed. When Hunter 
assumed the administration of the province he declared 
as one of his guiding principles, that questions of 
land title should be left to the courts. "" Accordingly, 
in the November term of the Supreme Court in 1714, 
a test case turning upon the validity of the proprietors' 
title to the Elizabethtown purchase was brought in the 
name of Jacob Daniel on the demise of Edward 
Vaughan against Joseph Woodruff.' Vaughan held of 
the proprietors and Woodruff by the " Clinker Lot " 
survey. The case came to trial in the spring term of 
the next year, but the jury returned a special verdict. 
This was several times argued, but finally, on May 17, 
1 71 8, the court gave judgment for Daniel and awarded 
him a WTit of possession."* The brief record seems to 
show that the case was fully and fairly heard, although 
perhaps no other outcome was possible with Chief 
Justice Jamison presiding as an appointee of his fellow 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 202. 'Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 427. 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court (Perth Amboy, 1714-1731), p. 2y. 
* Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 46. 



498 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Scot, Hunter, the staunch friend of the proprietors. At 
any rate the proprietors' title to the EHzabethtown tract 
was established, and the province rested for a time in the 
decision. 

But the matter did not rest here permanently. It 
seems not improbable that the movement in the assembly 
v^hich resulted in the removal of Jamison as chief justice 
involved some feeling" against the proprietors. At any 
rate, with the more disinterested Burnet as governor, 
and Robert Lettice Hooper on the bench, the proprie- 
tary control of the courts was not so assured. As we 
shall see elsewhere, there was an interesting and active 
revival of the old anti-proprietary feeling in East Jersey 
in Burnet's time. The proprietors, therefore, desiring 
to clinch their claims to the EHzabethtown tract, 
brought, in 1730, sundry ejectment suits in the name of 
Patrick Lithegow, on the demise of Peter Schuyler, 
against several persons who had acquired lands within 
the EHzabethtown tract by the "Clinker Lot" right. 
The defendants were John Robinson, Henry Clark, 
Andrew Craig, Joshua Marsh, and others.' 

These cases were imdoubtedly watched with the 
greatest interest by all concerned in the politics of East 
Jersey. The best counsel obtainable was employed ; 
Murray and James Alexander, the authors of the Bill in 
Chancery, for Lithegow, and John Kinsey, the political 
leader, and Smith, for the defendants. The trial finally 
came on May 17 and 18, 1733, before Chief Justice 
Hooper in person.^ The minutes of the Supreme Court 
unfortunately do not give the argument ; they do, how- 

'^ EHzabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 47- 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court (Perth Amboy, 1732-1738), pp. 
173-178. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



499 



ever, show that the hearing was continued '* at above 
nineteen hours," and that the chief justice summed up 
the evidence " at five of the clock in the morning." 
These things are proof of the great and unusual im- 
portance of the issue. On the next day the jury brought 
in a verdict in favor of the defendant. 

Thus was won a legal victory which brought about 
an immediate revival of the demands of the original 
Elizabethtown purchasers. The development of this 
movement brought with it most important results in the 
political field, and was destined soon to disturb once 
more the tranquillity of the province. The full signifi- 
cance of the decision will, however, be shown in detail 
in the chapter upon the proprietorship. It is our pur- 
pose here merely to indicate the importance of the 
work of the courts in determining the questions of land 
title which had been so long pending. 

It remains under this topic merely to state a few gen- 
eral facts not brought out by a discussion of important 
cases. In the first place any student must be impressed 
by the great number of legal cases and proceedings car- 
ried on before the courts. The number is certainly 
remarkable for so j'^oung a colony as New Jersey, and 
undoubtedly indicates that in default of other excitement 
litigation was one of the diversions of the colonists, 
though a troublesome and expensive one.' But many of 
the cases were ejectment suits, showing how defective 
the system of apportioning land was, and to what extent 
there had been frauds and other ill practices. Fairness 
requires it to be said, however, that nearly all the land 
suits were in East Jersey. 

In the second place, it has already been indicated that 

* Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, p. 21. 



200 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

in the early practice of the courts there were many 
irregularities and peculiarities.' Under Cornbury jus- 
tices of the peace appear as sitting in the Supreme 
Court, their names being regularl)^ entered on the 
minutes. In the trial of the first person indicted for 
murder, which took place in Gloucester, Cornbury in 
person presided over the court, just as the king was sup- 
posed to sit in King's Bench. It has also been shown 
that the Supreme Court tried many criminal cases on in- 
dictments brought by grand juries, which were returned 
by the sheriff of the county in which the court sat. 
This practice was of course perfectly regular, though odd 
from the mxodern point of view\ But the Supreme Court 
had, of course, no such number of cases brought up on 
appeal as at the present day. 

A word may be said too as to the work of the council 
as the highest provincial court. Although there were so 
many legal proceedings, not many cases were carried up 
on appeal to the council. Under Cornbury it appears 
that the council in some cases refused to receive appeals 
brought in an entirely legal manner. The fact that so 
many of its members were serving as judges also went 
far toward nullifying the right of appeal, as even if the 
judges of the lower courts did not vote on the decision 
of cases carried up from their own tribunals the clique 
spirit was strong among Cornbury's henchmen. More- 
over, a quorum of the council might not be left to vote." 
But even after the ousting of Cornbury's clique the num- 
ber of appeals was small. It is probable that not many 
of the cases heard in the lower courts were of the value 
of the £ 200 required for appeal. 

'Field, op. cit., p. 52 (note). 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 69. 



THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 



501 



Aside from the case of Peter Blacksfield already men- 
tioned, the case of most historical importance brought 
before the council was that of Jacob Daniel on the 
demise of Edward Vaughan vs. Joseph WoodrufT. On 
the decision of this case by the Supreme Court in 1718, 
declaring against the Elizabethtown title, Woodruff ap- 
pealed. The proceedings in error began before Hunter 
and council, in March. 1719,' and w'ere spun out during 
the administration of Burnet until August, 1725,^ when 
there was at length a rehearing. But the council took 
no further action, and the proceedings were thereupon 
discontinued. The decision for the proprietors therefore 
stood. 3 

Until late in the period the chief connection of the 
council with the actual work of the courts was therefore 
through its administrative and police powers ; — its work 
in ordering the prosecution of delinquent officials and 
the arrest and trial of persons dangerous to the public 
peace. 

If appeals to the council were somewhat rare, those to 
the king in council were scarcer still. During the union 
period, so far as the existing council record shows, there 
was but one appeal to England. •• The appeal of the 
celebrated case of Jones vs. Fullerton in the latter part 
of the proprietary period will, however, be remembered. 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 112. '^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 299. 

' No other result was possible with such a strong proprietary influence 
in the council. 

^Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 519. The appeal was made in 
eight cases at the same time. These were ejectment cases involving 
the claims of Col. Coxe in Hunterdon County. 



CHAPTER XXIV 

FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 

The chief source of expense under the provincial gov- 
ernment was usually the payment of salaries. This 
item was always the all-important part of the bills "for 
support of the government." The first assembly of 1703 
offered to raise by taxation £1,000 for the government 
and £300 for representatives' fees and incidental charges, 
the grant to run for one year only.' But Cornbury re- 
jected so small an amount by adjourning the assembly. 
At the second session held the next year the assembly 
proved slightly more liberal, offering £1,500 for one year 
and £1,000 for the next two following.- But these 
amounts were equally unacceptable to his excellency. 

The second assembly, in which it will be remembered 
the supporters of Cornbury were for a time in the 
majority, was more ready to *' answer the ends of gov- 
ernment." It passed a bill appropriating £2,000 "cur- 
rent money of the Eastern Division " for "support" for 
two years. 3 The assembly does not appear to have 
specified in any way how the sum granted was to be dis- 
tributed. The accounts of Peter Fauconnier, the re- 
ceiver-general, show, however, that the governor received 
£650 per annum, the lieutenant-governor £300, the chief 
justice £130, the second judge £100, and the attorney- 

'^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 23 and Oct. 2, 1703. 
^Ibid., Sept. 13, 1704. 

^ Ibid., Nov. 22, 1704; Laws Enacted in 1704 (Bradford print). 
502] 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



503 



general £100. The secretary was given £30 and as clerk 
of the council £50, with £20 for contingencies ; the clerk 
of the assembly had £50 with £20 for contingencies. £50 
went to the printer, and £30 to the door-keeper of each 
of the houses. But the most interesting payments were 
£180 for the governor's house rent, " etc.," and £260 per 
annum for the receiver-general. Fauconnier also pre- 
sumed to pay to Cornbury £61 9s id as part of his salary 
for a third year in spite of the time limitations of the 
act.' This was one of the offenses for which he was later 
prosecuted.^ 

The revenue bill was eventually disallowed by the 
home government, certainly a rather unusual proceeding. ^ 
It had, however, already been carried into efifect. In 
April, 1705, the Lords wrote to Cornbury stating that 
they deemed £1,500 for the first year and £1,000 for the 
succeeding years sufficient. £400 was to be for the gov- 
ernor's salary and traveling charges, £200 for the lieu- 
tenant-governor, and the rest for the contingent charges 
of the government. The Lords desired that such a grant 
be made for at least eleven years.* By this communica- 
tion Cornbury was evidently surprised and shocked. He 
nevertheless answered dutifully that he would readily 
yield as to his own salary. ^ He would willingly submit 
all his private concerns to the queen. She had always 
allowed him £500 for New Jersey, however, as a salary 
and for traveling expenses. ''Traveling," he reminded 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 352-5. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 25, 1710-11. 

^So stated in Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. But the statement 
may refer to the expression of general disapproval by the Lords men- 
tioned below. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 99. 

'Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 1 19-120. 



^04 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the Lords, was very dear in America. Cornbury also felt 
that £400 would not settle the contingent charges of the 
government. Out of it must come the salaries of the 
collectors, of the chief justice, of the attorney-general, 
and of the secretary, besides other charges. If the 
salaries were to be equivalent to those of the same offices 
in New York, the certain charge would foot up to £1,170, 
"besides customs officers, a messenger for the council 
and other casualties." 

Cornbury, nevertheless, did dutifully inform the third 
assembly that the queen would be satisfied with the 
amounts specified by the Lords, but expected it would 
be granted for twenty-one years.' But the assembly in 
its wisdom never granted him another penny during his 
administration. Thus his lordship's greed defeated itself. 
As a part of his total profit, however, we must remember 
that he had already received at least two large bribes, 
one at the beginning of his rule consisting of £200 in 
plate from certain of the proprietors represented by Dr. 
Johnstone;'' and the second, the so-called "Blind Tax," 
raised by Capt. John Bovvne and Richard Salter among 
the anti-quit-renters. This was said by Morris to 
amount to £1500.3 

The general assembly proved entirely willing to make 
an appropriation upon the request of Lovelace, but, 
warned by past abuses, would make it for only one year. 
The amount given was £1600.'' Of this, £800 was to be 
paid to Lovelace. But the untimely death of Lovelace 
opened the way for difficulties. Ingoldsby neglected to 

^Assembly Journal, Apr. 7, 1707. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 207. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 227. Morris undoubtedly exaggerated. 

*Allinson states the exact amount as ;^i722 los. 4d. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



505 



send the acts passed under Lovelace home for approval, 
thus rendering it easy to change them. The fifth as- 
sembly, which was not unfavorable to the Ingoldsby 
regime, in consequence actually passed " An Act for Ex- 
plaining and Rendering more Effectual" the act of sup- 
port. This gave to Ingoldsby £600 of the £800 appro- 
priated for Lovelace.' As a consequence Lady Lovelace 
appealed to the Queen, and when Hunter arrived he bore 
a royal letter in favor of Lady Lovelace, stating that the 
Crown was not only satisfied that the £800 be paid to 
her but deemed it to be an act of the highest justice. =* 
Hunter's assembly prepared a bill declaring the printed 
copy of all the acts passed in Lovelace's time valid as 
the originals. This measure would have given the 
Crown the opportunity of choosing between the original 
law and the act as altered under Ingoldsby. But the 
council, still under control of Cornbury's old clique, de- 
feated it, with most of the other measures sent up by 
the assembly. 3 Hunter, however, ventured to send the 
printed copies of Lovelace's acts to the Lords. But it 
does not appear that any part of the money given In- 
goldsby under the act 1709 was recovered. 

The accession of Hunter marks the commencement of 
a new era in the financial history of the province, for 
from that time on "support" was granted regularly and 
without serious delay. At Hunter's first meeting with 
the assembly in the winter of 1710, "support" was 
voted for two years.* In preparing the act the assembly 
adopted the new plan of consulting the governor as to 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 57, 66. Hunter declared that In- 
goldsby bribed the council. 
^Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 430; Assembly Journal, Jan. 11, 1710-11. 
''■New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 58. 
^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 5, 1710-11. 



506 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

his instructions on the subject/ and Hunter aided the 
representatives in their work by showing them an ac- 
count of the expenses." The assembly now specified by 
resolution the amount of salary to be given each officer. 
Hunter received £500 a year '' proclamation money," 
and £100 more for house rent, fire, candles, express, and 
other incidental expenses. The chief justice received 
£100, the treasurer £40, the clerk of the council £35, the 
clerk of the assembly £45, the door-keeper of the council 
£10, the door-keeper of the assembly £12, the sergeant- 
at-arms £12, the auditor-general £40, and the printer 
£30, The attorney-general was given £20, and each 
assemblyman was to have five shillings a day during ses- 
sions. For this purpose £300 per annum was to be 
raised and included in the act for support. ^ It can 
easily be seen that the small sums given to several of 
the lesser officers was due to dislike of the persons hold- 
ing the positions, as Griffith and Basse. "^ The act, 
however, established a scale of salaries destined to be 
somewhat permanent. Hunter himself thought that the 
amount given was inconsiderable, but held the form of 
the act correct, and hoped that a larger sum might be 
given later.5 

In 1713 the assembly again readily voted support for 
two years.^ As before, the governor was given £500 for 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 21, 1710, Jan. 3, 1710-11. 

'^ Ibid., Dec. 23, 1710. Hunter stated to the house that he had no in- 
structions fixing the amount of his salary. 

^Assembly Journal, Jan. 5, 8, 1710-11; New Jersey Archives, vol. 
xiv, p. 121. 

*■ No provision was made for the payment of the council. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 64. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 23, 1713-14; A^ew Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, 
p. 122. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



507 



salary, and £100 for expenses. In the salaries of the 
lower officers there were some small changes. The chief 
justice was given £100, the second judge £30, the clerk 
of the council £35, and the attorney-general £15. The 
treasurer was to have £50 for the first year and £40 for 
the second. The clerk of the assembly received eight 
shillings for each day during the sessions and an addi- 
tional sum for "paper, parchment, minute books, etc." 
The door-keepers of the two houses had two shillings 
six pence per day for the session. Provision was made 
for the sergeant-at-arms, and the printer was reimbursed 
for printing sixty copies of the laws and votes passed 
during the session. Lastly, each member of the general 
assembly was to have five shillings for each day and for 
coming and going, but each councilor received six shil- 
lings per diem. This last item is not only interesting in 
itself as the first specified grant in payment for the coun- 
cil, but also shows the hnal reconciliation between the 
houses. 

When the support was renewed in 17 16, after the suc- 
cessful termination of the struggle with Coxe, Basse and 
Griffith, there were no important changes in the amounts 
appropriated. Hunter's salary was increased to £600, 
but this sum was to include his incidental charges. The 
door-keeper of the council now had £10 and the printer 
£25 per annum. The sergeant-at-arms received three 
shillings a day and councilors and representatives an 
equal amount of five shillings. The other salaries were 
substantially as before.' The last appropriation act of 
Hunter's time, passed in the session of 1718-19, was also 
hardly more than a continuation of the former act for 

^Assembly Jourtial, Jan. 8, 1716-17; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, 
p. 79. 



5o8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

two years. It did, however, contain one interesting 
change in salary, as the pay of the chief justice was cut 
from £ioo to £80.' 

In Burnet's first meeting with the assembly, in Feb- 
ruary 1 720-1, he made a strong plea for an increased 
revenue, declaring that, though the prosperity of New 
Jersey was increasing greatly, the salaries of her officers 
had actually been reduced." The assembly promptly set 
about preparing a bill appropriating f 1,020 for tv^^o years 
for the support of the government, and £700 for the 
purpose of paying the assembly and council at the rate 
of five shillings per diem for all sessions held during the 
two years. This was approximately the amount given 
under Hunter. But it was not satisfactory to the new 
executive. Under his influence the coimcil amended the 
bill so as to make it run for the lifetime of King George 
and one year longer. ^ As the assembly would consider 
neither the power of the council to amend such a meas- 
ure nor the extension of the grant, the bill was lost. 
Burnet declared that his instructions absolutely forbade 
him to accept a bill for so short a term.* 

When Burnet met the assembly again, in March, 1721, 
under more favorable circumstances he again made a 
plea for an increased revenue. This time, however, he 
told the house not to think of him as much as of the in- 
ferior ofificers whose salaries had not covered their ex- 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 27, 1718-19. The reduction may be an in- 
dication of dissatisfaction with a chief justice re'^ident in New York. 
See also New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 128. 

'■Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 147-8. 

'The acts as prepared by the assembly and as amended by the council 
are entered in the assembly journal. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 197. He also objected to the pay- 
ment of the salaries of assembl3'men on warrant from the speaker. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS -09 

penses.' The assembly now showed itself somewhat 
more willing to conform to the wishes of the governor 
and passed a bill supporting the government for five 
years. ^ The amount given, however, was approximately 
the same as under Hunter. Burnet received £500 with 
£100 for incidental charges, the chief justice £100, the 
treasurer of each division £20, the attorney-general £20, 
the clerk of the council £25, the doorkeeper of the coun- 
cil £10, the clerk of the assembly eight shillings per diem 
and a sum for express, paper, etc., the sergeant-at-arms 
three shillings per diem and three shillings more when 
traveling where he could not get fees, and and the door- 
keeper of the assembly two shillings six pence per diem. 
£60 was given to the council to be paid to its members 
in proportion to the time they attended while the as- 
semblymen received the usual five shillings per diem. 
Afterward, however, the bill was amended so as to give 
the council five shillings per diem.' 

The session of the fall of 1723 brought, however, a 
new complication. Heretofore all the sums appropriated 
for support had been raised by taxation. ■♦ But the posi- 
tion assumed by the home government that it would 
allow the issue of bills of credit only in acts for the sup- 
port of the government now produced a result v^diich 
might have been foreseen. An act was passed for the 
issue of £40,000 in bills of credit. ^ Of this sum £36,000 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiv, p. 205. 

"^ Assembly Journal, Apr. 4 and 5, 1722. '*Ibid., Apr. 4, 1722. 

*There had been one partial exception. In 1714 an act had been 
passed appropriating /"ogg 13s. 6d. for the support of the government 
out of the moneys raised for the Canada expedition. 

* Nevill, Acts front the Time of the Surrender of the Government in 
the 2d of Queen Anne to the 25th of King George II (Woodbridge, 
1752); Assembly Journal, Nov. 12, 14, 1723. 



giO THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

was to be loaned to the inhabitants of the province at 
five per cent, interest through the county loan offices. 
The £4000 remaining was to be paid to the treasurers of 
the two divisions of the province. Part was to be used 
to sink all old bills of credit still in circulation. But the 
rest was to go as emoluments to certain colonial officers. 
The members of the assembly and of the council were to 
have six shillings per diem for the present session.' The 
clerk, door-keeper and sergeant-at-arms of the assembly 
were to have their usual pay. Further, all councilors 
and assemblymen who had attended the session begun in 
February, 1721, were to have £10 each and all officers 
their full fees, deducting what they had already received. 
The treasurers were to have £10 a year additional for the 
next two years and the attorney-general £40 for services 
during the session. £1000 annually was to be raised by 
taxation for ten years in the same way as the money 
previously voted for support. The proceeds of this tax 
for the first four years were to go to sink the £4000 in 
bills of credit paid to the treasurers. The rest of the tax 
was to be used as an additional support for the govern- 
ment. This provision was no doubt the bait intended to 
induce Burnet, and perhaps even the home authorities, 
to approve the measure. For the student it is surely an 
act highly instructive as to colonial financiering. 

Burnet himself seems to have been entirely convinced 
that the act was proper and indeed a great gain for the 
government. He wrote at length to his superiors in 
explanation and defense of it for it was well understood 
that the Lords of Trade viewed the issue of bills of 
credit with much suspicion. =" In this case, however, they 

' Assemblymen were to be paid on warrants from the speaker. 
•New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 75, 86 et seq. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 5 1 1 

agreed, though evidently rather unwilHngly, to let the 
act stand for the present at least.' 

During the same session the representatives succeeded 
in having Chief Justice Jamison replaced by William 
Trent, an inhabitant of the province who would ride the 
circuit. In connection with this matter they voted to 
pay £100 additional salary to a chief justice who would go 
on the circuit. They resolved also that the second judge 
should have £50 additional for the next two years, the 
attorney-general £40, and the clerk of the circuits £40.'' 

The session held in the spring of 1725 also brought 
certain interesting developments. The assembly proved 
very willing to continue the support for five years,^ but 
in addition to voting the usual taxes they proceeded to 
appropriate the further sum of £1321 which had accrued 
as interest from the loaning of the bills of credit. ■♦ This 
welcome addition to the public funds of the province 
enabled the assembly to be much more liberal in its 
grants. Nearly all the salaries were increased. ' Burnet 
received £500 a year and had £500 given for incidentals. 
The chief justice received £200 for salary and for riding 
the circuits. The second judge got £50, each treasurer 
£50, the attorney-general £50, the clerk of the council 
£30, the clerk of the circuits £30, the door-keeper of the 
council £10, the clerk of the assembly eight shillings per 
diem, and a fee of fifty shillings for every private bill 
passed, the sergeant-at-arms three shillings per diem, 
and four shillings extra when traveling if he could not 
collect fees. The door-keeper of the assembly received 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 121. 

^ Assembly Journal, Nov. 23, 25, 1723. ^Ibid., June 16, 1725. 

* Bradford, Statutes of New Jersey (1732). 

'^ Assembly Journal, June 12, July 30, 1725. 



5 12 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

three shillings per diem; councilors and assemblymen 
were raised to six shillings per diem. Bradford, the 
printer, received £25 for printing the acts in 1722, and 
other past services were suitably rewarded. 

Burnet again did his best to persuade the Lords of 
Trade that the act marked a triumph for the govern- 
ment, and that no harm could possibly come to the 
currency of the province through the appropriation of 
the interest money.' But the Lords were not enthusi- 
astic. They solemnly warned him that such proceedings 
had caused great harm in other colonies, and strongly 
desired that no further alterations in the disposal of the 
bills of credit be made.^ However, they were willing to 
let the new act stand without formal approval. Accord- 
ing to Burnet this concession was obtained only through 
the representations of the agent La Heupe.^ After the 
receipt of the answer of the Lords, Burnet, who had 
every opportunity of knowing colonial feeling on the 
subject, wrote several times, urging that the appropria- 
tion of the interest be allowed.* He even offered to 
assume all responsibility personally. ^ But as usual the 
Lords gave no indication of any change of opinion. 

But in spite of the attitude taken by the Lords the 
assembly in its session of 1727 proceeded among other 
financial measures to pass a bill for appropriating £1725 
of the interest money on the bills of credit for the sup- 
port of the government and other purposes.^ This 
ninth assembly, it will be remembered, was dominated 
by John Kinsey, Jr., a politician only too ready to op- 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. v, pp. 104, 129, 153-4. 
^ Ibid., vol. V, pp. 121, 156. ^ Ibid.., vol. xiv, p. 341. 

"^ Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 163, 165. ^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 166. 

* Bradford, Statutes of New Jersey. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



513 



pose the government in the interest of a popular cause. 
Burnet was given £600 for incidentals out of the interest ; 
the councillors and representatives were to receive six 
shillings per diem for the session, and the other oflficers 
of the house received their usual fees. Kinsey himself 
was to have £20 for drawing up bills and other services. 
Richard Partridge, the new agent from whom much was 
expected, received £100 directly, and £270 in addition 
was given to the committee which had charge of the 
agency to be transmitted to Partridge at such times as 
should be deemed best.' 

In spite of what he had been told, Burnet accepted this 
act, and in informing the lords of its passage stated that, 
though he was disappointed that they had not been con- 
vinced by his former arguments, he again enclosed cer- 
tificates to show that the bills of credit had risen in value, 
and trusted that they would excuse his giving way to a 
measure he could not avoid.' Meanwhile Montgomerie 
had succeeded Burnet, and also wrote to the lords in 
favor of the act.^ In reply the lords wrote to Mont- 
gomerie expressing their strong disapproval of Burnet's 
action in passing the bill.* They stated that, if the last 
clause which allowed the general assembly to appropriate 
all interest money on bills of credit, when it accrued, to 
the charges of the government, were not repealed, they 
would have the act disallowed, and they ordered Mont- 
gomerie to move the assembly to its repeal. Against 
this order Montgomerie protested at length. ^ Mean- 
while, however, misunderstanding between Montgomerie 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 9, 1727-8. 

* New Jersey Atchives, vol. v, pp. 192 4. 

*Ibid., vol. V, pp. 190, 249. *^Ibid., vol. v, p. 200. 

''Ibid., vol. V, p. 249. 



514 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



and the ninth assembly had prevented any appropriations 
during its second session. 

The tenth assembly began work upon an act for the 
support of the government for five years/ but soon with- 
drew it and substituted a bill appropriating the money to 
be raised by the unexpired act of 1723 for additional 
support and for raising a further support for one year.' 
At the same time work was begun on a bill to enforce the 
payment of the incidental charges of the government out 
of the interest money made subject to appropriation by 
the act of 1727.^ Both of these measures were eventually 
passed, Montgomerie offering no real opposition. The 
expenditure was smaller than under Burnet, in spite of 
the fact that lighter taxation was secured through the 
use of the interest. The measures provided for the ap- 
propriation of £1,000 for the five ensuing years. The 
governor was given £500 per annum, the chief justice 
was cut to £150 (which must include his expenses on 
circuit), and the second judge, treasurers and attorney- 
general to £40 per annum apiece. The secretary was to 
have £25 per annum during the continuance of the acts 
reducing his fees, and £80 a year was appropriated for 
the agent. The other officers received about as before.* 

In transmitting these acts to the lords, Montgomerie 
admitted that he had been overridden, and justified him- 
self for assenting to them by saying that the province 
was determined upon them, and that if he had not 
yielded the government must have gone without sup- 
port. ^ The lords in reply said rather sternly that they 

^ Assembly Journal, May 27, 1730. 

* Ibid., June 3, 1730; Bradford, Statutes of New Jersey. 
^Assembly Journal, June 3, 1730. * Ibid., July 3, 1730. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. v, pp. 287-9. The governor's statement 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 515 

must adhere to what they had formerly said, and that as 
the assembly had not repealed the clause of the act of 
1727 making the interest money subject to appropriation 
they had laid the said law before the king for disallow- 
ance.' In spite of this threat, however, it does not 
appear that the act was disallowed. 

With such precedents it was but natural that the 
assembly should continue to follow its own desires in the 
matter of appropriations, especially as the substitution of 
Cosby for Montgomerie added little real strength to the 
provincial executive. In the only session of the assem- 
bly held under Cosby, that of 1733, the legislature again 
made use of the interest money of its bills of credit for 
meeting the charges of the government, though they 
added a clause to the act suspending its operation until 
it had been confirmed by the crown.' The same policy 
of retrenchment which was adopted under Montgomerie 
was followed. The acts passed gave only f 100 per an- 
num for the support of the government for the years 
1736-8, and the salaries of the officers remained practi- 
cally as under the law of 1730. It is important to note 
that the appropriation of £80 for the agent was con- 
tinued, and his place as a regular ofBcer of the colony 
was thus better established. 3 

Considering the grants for support of the union period 

that he had conferred with every one of the members of the assembly and 
had told them that he was ordered to move the repeal of the clause of the 
late act subjecting the interest money to appropriation is an almost pitiful 
confession of helplessness in light of the result. He had not, however, 
received the reply of the Lords to his recent representations. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 302. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 501. This act of 1733 was eventually confirmed; 
Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 531. 

^ Assembly Journal, Aug. 8, 1733. 



5i6 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



as a whole, the student cannot avoid being impressed 
with the great economy shown by the general assembly 
in making such appropriations, and by the fact that this 
economy tended rather to increase than diminish as the 
colony grew in population and prosperity. Beginning 
with the grant of £2000 a year, made to Cornbury, we 
find the amount cut to £1300 under Lovelace, Hunter 
and Burnet, and finally reduced to £1000 under Mont- 
gomerie and Cosby, and this in spite of the inclusion of 
the income gained from the bills of credit. We must, how- 
ever, avoid drawing inferences too hastily. The reason 
for the later reduction was not so much unwillingness 
to maintain an efficient government as lack of confidence 
in new and untried governors. Moreover, it was highly 
proper that the assembly should not yield to the demands 
of royal officers, whose views on the subject of the dig- 
nity of the government had been formed amid other 
conditions. We should also remember that the ability 
of the colony to pay depended not so much upon the 
value of its resources as upon the amount of actual cur- 
rency, always insufficient, which it had at its command.' 
In judging the amount of the salaries given the pro- 
vincial officers we should also be on our guard. The 
exceedingly small sums given to the subordinate officers 
by no means represented their total emolument, which 
consisted chiefly of fees for the performance of the vari- 
ous acts pertaining to their offices. This fact is well 
illustrated by the case of James Smith, the secretary of 
the province, whose memorial to the Lords of Trade, 
complaining of the reduction of his fees by the acts of 
1727, declared that, in consideration of a loss sure to be 
£60, the assembly had compensated him by a gift of but 

'Payment of taxes in wheat was, however, legalized in New Jersey. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



517 



£25.' These fees were of course not taxes upon the 
entire province. 

Aside from the salaries, there were certain other ex- 
penditures which seem to have been taken somewhat 
regularly out of the appropriations for support. These 
were chiefly sums voted to persons for performing some 
necessary service for the province or the assembly. 
Numerous sums, varying according to the service, were 
paid to the printer, William Bradford, for printing the 
laws of the colony.- The clerk of the house, and some- 
times other officers, were reimbursed for special service. ^ 
The sergeant-at-arms received amounts to cover his 
traveling expenses.* Special rewards were on several 
occasions sent to the agent.' Individual members, like 
Kinsey, were even paid for drawing bills and similar 
services. But though such payments as these were 
authorized at nearly every session of the legislature, the 
total sum thus expended was never large. 

Aside from the payment of salaries and the incidental 
charges connected with the holding of assemblies, the 
regular expenditures of the provincial government were 
indeed inconsiderable. About the only other regular 
charges authorized by colonial laws were for the building 
and repair of court houses and jails,'' for the laying out 
and repair of roads, ^ and for the payment of premiums for 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 199. 

^Assembly Journal, Jan. 5, 1710-11; Feb, 17, 1713-14; Jan. 8, 1716- 
17; Jan. 29, 1718-19; June 18, 1725, etc. 

^Ibid., e. g., Aug. 7, 1725. *Ibid., e. g., Apr. 4, 21, 28, 1722. 

^Ihid., Nov. 26, 1723; Feb. 10, 1727-28. 

*Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, 
p. 528. 

''Laws Enacted in 1704 (Bradford print); Nevill, Statutes; New Jer- 
sey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 69. 



ci8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the killing of wolves, panthers, red foxes and other dan- 
gerous animals.' Though these expenditures were au- 
thorized by provincial acts, yet in their nature they were 
really county expenditures. The amounts required were 
to be determined by county officers and assessed in the 
counties by their direction. In a similar way the over- 
seers of the poor were authorized to expend such sums 
as were needed and to assess the same upon their town- 
ships or precincts.' 

The province did, however, employ, aside from its 
regular officials, such officers as tax assessors and col- 
lectors in the various counties, commissioners for the 
management of the loan offices established under Burnet, 
and commissioners for the signing of bills of credit. 
Tax collectors were remunerated by being allowed to 
keep small percentages of what they collected. ^ The 
commissioners of the loan offices received sums, specified 
in the loan-office acts, out of the interest on the amounts 
loaned. "* The commissioners for signing bills of credit, 
who were usually prominent members of the assembly, 
also received their pay out of the bills signed.* The ex- 
penditures for all the above purposes came only indirectly 
out of the pockets of the people. 

But there were certain extraordinary expenditures 
during the union period which the province was called 
upon to meet and which entailed most important results 
both of a financial and a political nature. These were in 
connection with the two futile expeditions against 
Canada, to which New Jersey was obliged to contribute. 

'Allinson, op. cit.; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 438. 
'Allinson, op. cit.; New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 328. 
'See for example the act of support of 1725; Bradford, Statutes. 
*Act of 1723; Nevill, Statutes. 



FINANCIAL A FFA IRS 519 

For the Nicholson-Vetch expedition of Ingoldsby's time 
New Jersey raised £3000 to maintain her quota/ and for 
the Walker expedition two years later she gave £5000/ 
These heavy immediate expenses were met by the issue 
of bills of credit, and indeed caused the beginning of the 
issue of this form of currency in New Jersey. The ex- 
pense of sinking the bills was to be met by moneys 
raised from taxation, but, as there was no direct return 
from the expeditions, the province was thus left for 
several years with a troublesome debt in the form of 
outstanding bills. As we shall see later, the handling of 
this debt was for a time the leading factor in the financial 
history of the province. 

The methods of raising money followed in the province 
of New Jersey were from the modern standpoint primi- 
tive in the extreme. The acts for support regularly pro- 
vided for the levying of a land tax and a general prop- 
erty tax. The acts themselves were very similar in their 
general character, and most of the perplexities con- 
nected with modern taxation were of course unknown. 

The system of taxation in the royal province was be- 
gun by the act of support of 1704.^ This contained an 
interesting preamble setting forth that *' Her majesty's 
dutiful subjects, the representatives," being deeply sen- 
sible of her majesty's "tender care " in appointing Corn- 
bury as governor, were heartily willing to support the 
government " to the utmost of their poor ability." The 
law then enacted that every freeman, married or unmar- 
ried, the tax on whose real or personal estate did not 
amount to six shillings, should notwithstanding pay six 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 468. 

^Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 481; Assembly Journal, July 10, 1711. 

* Laws Enacted in 1704 (Bradford print). 



e20 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

shillings. All persons keeping ferries must pay twenty- 
shillings for each ferry; but a certain widow Jones, who 
kept a ferry at Piscataway, was exempted. All wherries 
that carried passengers and all boats or sloops exporting 
wood or other commodities, paid fifteen shillings. All 
persons selling beer, ale or cider under ten gallons, or 
stronger drink under a quart, after the publication of the 
act, were to be taxed at the discretion of the assessors 
not under twenty shillings nor over three pounds. The 
assessors were also to tax at discretion all owners of 
grist mills and saw mills, all Indian traders, shop-keepers, 
and merchants trading in the province. Mill owners 
were to pay not under twenty shillings nor above three 
pounds, and all traders not under twenty shillings nor 
over four pounds. 

The rest of the £2,000 appropriated was to be raised 
by a tax "upon goods and chattels." All lands held by 
surveys, deeds or patents belonging to inhabitants or to 
persons not in the province, who had settled the same by 
tenants, servants or slaves, were valued at £10 per one 
hundred acres. All cattle and horses over one year old 
were valued at forty shillings each. All slaves, except- 
ing those disabled, were rated at £20. Sheep were to be 
held worth four shillings per head. 

For raising the tax two assessors and a collector for 
each county were named in the act itself. These persons 
were to take an oath for the faithful performance of their 
duties before two justices of the peace, and if they failed 
to carry them out, were to be fined £5, and taxed at 
the discretion of the assessors. If anyone gave an 
untrue list, he was to pay ten times the value of the ob- 
ject concealed. The assessors were to meet at Araboy 
on April first next and the following year at Burlington 
in order to apportion the tax. They were to sum up the 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



521 



amount to be obtained by the taxation of heads and other 
objects of assessment and subtract it from the £2,000. 
Then they were to account the goods and chattels re- 
ported and assess the tax equally. The assessors of each 
county were to make perfect lists of the assessment of 
each person, and these were to be given to the con- 
stables, who were to notify the persons taxed on or be- 
fore May first. All taxes were to be paid in current 
silver of the eastern division on or before May 15th, and 
the collectors were to give receipts. 

Lists were to be drawn immediately of all who had 
neglected to pay. These were to be given by the col- 
lectors to any justices, and the latter were at once to 
issue warrants to the constables to make distress upon 
the goods of offenders. If these distresses were not 
redeemed within five days, they were to be put up for 
sale, but the overplus was to be returned to the owner. 
All taxes were to be paid by the collectors to the 
receiver-general on or before June 15th. Each collector 
and assessor was allowed twenty shillings per annum and 
every constable twelve shillings, besides such fees as 
arose from distress. 

It seems probable that beneath some of the provisions 
of the act of 1704 lay the desire of the majority of the 
assembly to injure their opponents, the proprietors. 
Many of the proprietors in England held patents for 
large tracts, which they had settled only in small part by 
sending over servants or tenants. Such persons could 
be subjected to heavy taxation. The act, moreover, had 
given its own execution into the hands of men the oppo- 
sition of most of whom to the proprietors was well 
known. Nevertheless the act marked out the lines which 
all subsequent acts followed in a general way, though of 
course manv details were altered or added. 



522 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

The act of 171 1, the first act of support under Hun- 
ter, provided for a tax closely resembling that of 1704-5,' 
i\.ll freemen whose salable estate was not assessed at six 
shillings w^ere nevertheless to pay six shillings, but all 
tradesmen who followed their trades were to pay from 
four to sixteen shillings, at the discretion of the asses- 
sors. The ferries of the province were now to con- 
tribute different sums, which were fixed by the assembly. 
These ranged from six shillings, to be given by the ferry 
at " Weighhawk," to thirty shillings, from the ferry at 
Amboy. Every wherry carrying passengers and goods 
for hire was taxed twenty shillings, and every flat-boat 
ten shillings. Wood-boats carrying six cords of wood 
paid twenty shillings, and if under six cords ten shillings; 
if under four cords six shillings. Grist and saw-mills 
were taxed from fifteen shillings to three pounds, at dis- 
cretion ; fulling-mills from ten shillings to twenty shil- 
lings. Merchants and traders were to give from twenty 
shillings to ten shillings, at discretion, and inn-keepers 
from twenty shillings to ten pounds. 

Some changes were also made in the general property 
tax. All unimproved land * was to be valued at £7 
per one hundred acres. All laboring slaves over four- 
teen and under fifty were valued at £15 per head; all 
cattle and horses over three years at forty shillings. 
Hogs and sheep, if one year old, were to be held worth 
four shillings, but swine over one year old were valued 
at six shillings. All sums were of course in proclamation 
money. 

From the accession of Hunter to the end of the union 
period the tax continued to be levied in practically the 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 10, 1710-11. 

'The act of course refers only to land held under patent. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



523 



same way. The amounts of the various assessments of 
course varied a httle according to the total sums to be 
raised, yet the changes were not great. 

In the act of 1713 it was first specifically stated that 
persons not residing in the province, bringing in goods 
for sale except at public fairs, should be taxed on the 
same scale as resident traders.' In 1716 it was enacted 
that such persons, if they sold at retail, should be taxed 
not under four pounds. This clause introduced the 
principle of discrimination in favor of home traders, who 
were to be taxed from thirty shillings to five pounds at 
discretion. The act of 17 16 also stated that all vessels 
or boats coming into the Jerseys from other provinces 
should pay the same taxes as the boats of the province.^ 

In 1 71 3 it was ordered that, in making up the general 
property tax, all owners of houses and lots in towns the 
tax of whose salable estate did not amount to eight 
shillings should pay at the discretion of the assessors not 
over ten shillings nor under five shillings per annum. 
The following act declared that they should pay not over 
twenty shillings nor less than three shillings. In the 
law of 1 716 an important feature was added by the order 
that, in valuing land, all unimproved land held by surveys 
or patents whereon could be found an}'^ goods of any one 
inhabiting was to be valued at £7 per one hundred acres 
as formerly, but if absolutely no settlement had been 
made it was to be valued at £4 per hundred. This 
change was no doubt in the interest of the proprietors. 

The act of 1716 enumerated all the mills in the prov- 
ince and fixed the tax to be paid by each just as in the 

^Assembly Journal, Feb. 2j, 1713-14. This act levied the six shill- 
ings per capita tax only upon single men, thus making it virtually a tax 
on bachelors. The later acts followed the act of 1713 in this respect. 

^Ibid.y Jan. 8, 1716-17. 



524 T'HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

case of the ferries. The amounts ranged all the way 
from forty shillings to five shillings. But this precedent 
was not afterward followed, or at least the amounts were 
not entered on the assembly journal or in the act itself. 

The last appropriation act of Hunter's time, that of 
1 718, made no important changes except that it did not 
keep the discrimination against outside traders estab- 
lished in 1 716.' 

Burnet's first act of 1722 reduced the per capita tax from 
six shillings to four shillings.'' It laid, however, a " cer- 
tainty " upon all public-house keepers who were to pay at 
least £5, though not more then £15. This provision was 
an important addition. Merchants and shop keepers were 
also assessed from £5 to £15, though Indian traders es- 
caped more easily. All lands regularly held, whereon 
any improvement had been made, were to be valued at 
only £5 per one hundred acres. Unimproved lands were 
not mentioned. It was now specified that all taxes for 
support of the government must be paid in gold, silver, 
or wheat. Wheat was to be taken at five pence less per 
bushel than its market value at New York or Philadel- 
phia. Bills of credit were of course not to be taken. 

The act of 1725 required all those who brought goods 
to sell from neighboring colonies to pay £3 to the 
treasurers or county collectors. ^ Otherwise they for- 
feited £6 for each offense. Merchants of the Jerseys 
paid from twenty shillings to five pounds. Otherwise 

^Assembly Journal, Jan. 31, 1 718-19; Laws Enacted in 1718-19 
(Bradford print). Persons not inhabitants of New Jersey who brought 
in goods to sell at retail had to obtain certificates from the county col- 
lectors which were virtually licenses. 

^Assembly Journal, Apr. 13, 1722; Laws Enacted in 1722-23 (Brad- 
ford print) . 

^ Assembly Journal, June 12, 1725. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 525 

no important change was made from the previous 
arrangements. 

The later acts of Burnet, Montgomerie and Cosby,, 
follow in principle the earlier legislation. The amounts 
levied by them were, however, for reasons already stated, 
somewhat less than those called for by the earlier acts. 

The method of collecting and apportioning the taxes 
also remained very much the same throughout the 
period we are treating. The method employed in 1704 
appears to have been followed until 17 16, when an act 
for the more regular choosing and electing of assessors 
and collectors in the respective towns and counties was 
passed.' By this it was enacted that the freeholders of 
each town or precinct should meet and elect annually 
one assessor and one collector. If the freeholders ne- 
glected to do this, any three justices might meet and 
appoint a collector and an assessor. Within ten days 
these officers were to qualify themselves by oath or 
affirmation before a justice. On a provincial tax the 
assessors were to go to all the inhabitants and take an 
exact account of all their ratable goods. Then they 
were to meet at the most convenient place of their 
counties and assess the inhabitants equally to make up 
the county's quota. The assessor was then to make out 
a list of every person's tax and deliver one copy to the 
collector of each town and one to the collector of each 
county, who was still, as under the old arrangement, to 
be named in the act of the assembly. The local col- 
lector was forthwith to gather the tax and pay it to the 
county collector, who was to pay the same over to the 
treasurer or such person as the act directed. The fees 
of the assessor were nine pence per pound, and of the 
collector six pence per pound. 

' Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 



^26 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

If any person concealed any of his estate from the 
assessor, he was to forfeit two shillings per pound for 
such neglect, to be recovered by any one by an action 
for debt before any justice, one-half to go to his own 
use and one-half for the Crown. If any refused to pay, 
the collector was to return his name to a justice, who 
was to issue a warrant to the constable for distress. If 
there were no goods, the person was to be taken and 
turned over to the sheriff, who was to keep him in 
custody until the tax and costs were paid. If any col- 
lector, assessor, or justice refused to perform the dis- 
tress, he was to forfeit forty shillings, and in the case of 
the death or removal of any collector or assessor any 
two justices of the peace might appoint others. 

If any person thought he was wronged by the assess- 
ment he might appeal to the next court of quarter ses- 
sions or, in case the tax was to be paid before such 
court, to three justices of the peace. These bodies 
might make abatement, or if it appeared that any were 
not assessed high enough they might levy the extra sum. 

When it was necessary to levy a county tax, it was to 
be assessed and raised in the same manner and was to be 
paid to the county collector, to be used as determined 
by the justices of the county with the freeholders chosen 
according to the act for building and repairing jails, etc. 

The county collectors were to keep "fair accounts" of 
all sums received from the several local collectors, and of 
the deficiencies due from each, and for all moneys raised 
for support of the government were to deliver the same 
to the treasurer. The accounts for county rates were 
to be delivered before the court of quarter sessions once 
a year. If the collectors had in their hands money over 
and above the quota of the county, it was to be employed 
for the use of the county. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS -2/ 

This act remained in force during the union period. 
The system of local election of assessors and collec- 
tors established by it was certainly far more in keeping 
with the spirit of the colony than the old arrangement 
by which those officers were named directly by the as- 
sembly. 

The apportionment of the taxes among the counties 
was now regularly made by the assembly. The act of 
support of 1 718 apportioned the sum of £1350 appointed 
to be raised for the first year as follows: Bergen, £111 
I2S.; Essex, £180 5s.: Middlesex. £157 i6s.; Somerset, 
£52 6s.; Monmouth, £230 23.: Burlington and Hunter- 
don, £270 i8s.; Gloucester, £116 19s.; Salem, £194 14s.; 
Cape May, £42 8s. This apportionment should give a 
fairly correct estimate of the relative wealth of the 
counties.' The act of 1720 apportioned the sum of £1111 
to be raised for the first eighteen months on a scale 
practically similar: Bergen, £90; Essex, £151: Middle- 
sex, £129 3s.; Somerset, £43 ; Monmouth, £188; Hunter- 
don, £80; Burlington, £140; Gloucester. £95; Salem, 
£158; Cape May, £36 17s.' 

The tax for the support of the government was the 
only regular provincial tax levied for the sake of the 
proceeds. But it was by no means the only tax levied 
by provincial laws. The other taxes may be divided 
into two classes : first, those to meet county and local 
expenditures ; and second, those intended to regulate 
the trade of the colony or to produce certain social 
results. 

Among the taxes of the former class are to be placed 
those for the construction of jails and court houses, for 

^Laws Enacted in 1718-19 (Bradford print). 
^Ibid. (1722-23). 



528 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the laying-out of highways, for the relief of the poor, and 
for providing premiums for the slaying of wolves and 
other dangerous animals. In 1714 was passed the first 
act "for raising money for the building and repair of 
gaols and court houses within each county." ' This 
enacted that once each year the inhabitants of each town 
or precinct should choose two freeholders for the ensuing 
year. These "chosen freeholders,"^ together with the 
justices of the peace, were to meet and agree upon such 
sums as should be needed for jails and court houses. 
The county board thus created was to name assessors 
and collectors for gathering such tax, and was given full 
power to enforce its payment. The justices and free- 
holders were also to name managers to carry out work 
agreed upon, and these were authorized to draw war- 
rants upon the collectors for payment for the work and 
materials. But all such officers were accountable to the 
county board. The act provided also that, if the people 
neglected to elect "freeholders," the justices of the 
peace in their quarter sessions might appoint them. 

The provisions of this act were, however, modified in 
some respects by the act of 1716, for the more regular 
choosing and electing assessors and collectors for the 
raising of provincial taxes. The new law, as previously 
stated, laid it down that county taxes should be raised 
in the same manner and by the same assessors and col- 
lectors as the provincial tax. For the employment of all 
county moneys, however, the county collector was to be 
responsible to the justices and "chosen freeholders," 
as before. As the former law was not formally repealed, 
confusion seems to have resulted in some cases until 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 528; Allinson, Statutes. 
'Still the title of the members of the county board in New Jersey. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



529 



1719, when a new act was passed "to Prevent Mistakes 
and Irregularities by Assessors and Collectors." ' This 
ordered that in future all county taxes be raised in 
accordance with the act of 1716. Such sums were to be 
paid by local collectors to the county collector, to be 
disposed of as appointed by the justices and the chosen 
freeholders. The part of the law of 1714 relating to 
assessors and collectors was thereby repealed. The ar- 
rangements thus made remained in force during the rest 
of the union period. 

In 1 719 there was also an act for the building, rebuild- 
ing, repairing or amending of bridges in the respective 
towns or precincts.'' It enacted that in the case of large 
bridges lying wholly within a town or precinct, which 
could be repaired only by the assistance of special handi- 
craftsmen, the overseers of the highroads of the town 
were to apply to its two chosen freeholders and two 
justices. These, with the surveyor of the highroads of 
the town, were to contract for the necessary repairs. 
The sums required were to be collected and assessed 
under the act for the more regular choosing of assessors 
and collectors. Any surplus was to be used on the 
highroads. 

Beginning with the passage of the act of 1704 "for 
laying out, regulating, clearing, and preserving public 
common highways throughout this province," there was 
always a system of contributions for the maintenance of 
roads. 3 Such contribution, however, was paid in labor 
rather than in money. The act of 1704 ordered the con- 
struction of certain provincial highroads and named 
commissioners of highways in each county who were to 

'Allinson, op. cit. "Nevill, Statutes. 

^ Laws Enacted in 1704 (Bradford print). 



230 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

lay out such roads, if they did not already exist, and also 
such lesser roads as the counties required. For main- 
taining the highways the justices of the peace in their 
quarter sessions were to name two overseers of the high- 
ways for each town or precinct in each county. These 
overseers were to summon such and so many of the in- 
habitants as they should think fit to meet at such times 
and places, and to labor upon the roads for so long a 
time as the commissioners should appoint. Each team, 
with cart or wagon, was to be " esteemed " at three days' 
labor for one man. There was a six-shillings fine for 
absence, but the overseers were to employ inhabitants 
justly and equally. 

This act, with the others passed by the second assem- 
bly, was disallowed by the Crown,' but not before it had 
been executed. The commissioners named were all men 
who could be depended upon to work in the interest of 
Cornbury's faction, and it is asserted that their chief 
object in constructing roads was to injure their enemies 
by compelling them to pull down their enclosures and 
to allow roads to be run through their orchards/ 

In 1 716, under Hunter, the system was put on a better 
basis by the passage of an "Act for the Better Laying out, 
Regulating, and Preserving Public Roads and Highways 
thro' this Province."-^ This confirmed most of the roads 
laid out under the previous act, but ordered that hence- 
forth the freeholders and inhabitants of each town should 
choose four persons for surveyors of the highways, of whom 
the justices in quarter session should select two who should 
act for the ensuing year. The quarter sessions of each 
county was also to appoint two persons of each town or 

' AUinson, Statutes. ^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 280. . 

»Nevill, Statutes. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS -31 

precinct to act as overseers, to keep all roads in repair. 
The overseers, as before were to call the inhabitants to 
mend the highways, and the fine for default was four 
shillings six pence. Overseers were to account to their 
successors for all sums received, and if the labor of all 
the persons of a town was not needed every year the 
overseers were to give to their successors an account of 
those who had not worked. New roads were to be laid 
out by the surveyors with the assistance of those of the 
adjoining townships, but this was to be done only upon 
application made to them by the inhabitants of the town, 
and care was to be taken not to injure the lands of any. 
Provision was made for altering the course of roads laid 
out under the former act where it had proved incon- 
venient. The law also contained special provisions cov- 
ering certain cases, like the repair of the bridge of 
Gloucester River on the Salem road and that over South 
River on "the great highroad" between Amboy and 
Burlington, where the expense was too great to be borne 
by the adjoining towns. County taxes were here pro- 
vided for. 

In 1709, under Lovelace, a system of poor relief was 
established by an "'Act for Relief of the Poor.''' This 
enacted that each township or precinct by warrant from 
one justice should meet and choose overseers and as- 
sessors. The assessors were to assess the inhabitants 
such sum and in such manner as the township in its 
meeting agreed upon, and the overseers were to collect 
the same. The overseers with the aid of one or more 
justices were to " put forth " such children as had no 
parents able to care for them, and to see that all poor 
were supplied with necessary maintenance. Pounds 

'Allinson, op. cit. 



532 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

were also to be built for stray cattle and horses, and 
placed under the direction of persons selected by the 
towns. 

In the same session of the legislature an act for de- 
stroying of wolves, panthers, crows, and blackbirds was 
passed, ottering small premiums to all who should slay 
such animals. Such sums were to be paid by the jus- 
tices in their sessions with the concurrence of the grand 
jury, and were to be raised by assessors and collectors 
nominated by the said authorities.' In 1730 this law 
was superseded by another. ' The justices and the 
chosen freeholders of each county were now to raise the 
required simis in the same manner as other county taxes. 
The premiimis were limited to wolves and panthers : 
twenty shillings for a wolf, (five shillings if it were a 
whelp unable to prey), and fifteen shillings for a panther. 

Such, with the exception of certain acts of special and 
limited application, were the chief local taxes levied 
under provincial law during the union period. While it 
is impossible now to estimate accurately their amount, 
they must certainly have been very light when the con- 
ditions of the country are considered. 

Of a different nature were the import and export 
duties, levied for various reasons upon articles of com- 
merce. In 1714, under Hunter, such enactments were 
begun by the levying of an export duty of thirty shillings 
per thousand on pipe staves, and of twenty shillings per 
thousand on hogshead staves exported out of the eastern 
division to neighboring colonies.* The proceeds were 

* Bradford. Laws of the Proz'itue of Knf Jrrsfy (1717'^. 

* Allinson, Statutes; " An Act for Preventing the Waste of Timber, 
Pine and Cedar Trees." etc. 

' Allinson. op. cit. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



533 



to go for the support of the government. The reason 
assigned was that the exportation of staves would cause 
a waste of timber, and was at present a great discourage- 
ment to the trade of the colony. In the same session a 
duty of £io per head was laid upon all negro. Indian, 
and mulatto slaves imported.' Hunter stated to the 
Lords of Trade that the object was to encourage the 
bringing of white servants " to better people the col- 
ony."'" The act, however, permitted a person intending 
to settle permanently in the province to bring free of 
duty as many slaves as he chose. At the same time a 
duty was laid upon all wheat exported out of the eastern 
division to any other American colony. Hunter de- 
clared that this was to encourage their manufacture of 
bolting that they might have the benefits of their own 
produce.' 

In 1 716 the duties on staves and wheat were repealed. 3 
But in 1725. under Burnet, a new law was passed impos- 
ing duties on wheat, wheat meal, staves, and headings of 
all sorts, and bolts whereof staves or headings might or 
could be made.'* This law ordered that all persons ex- 
porting from the eastern division into the western or any 
other English colony on the continent, any wheat or 
wheat meal, before it had been bolted or packed, or any 
staves or headings made of oak. or any bolts whereof 
staves or headings might be made, should first enter 
the same with the collector of customs of the east- 
ern division, and pay one shilling for every bushel of 
wheat or wheat meal unbolted and fifteen shillings for 

'Allinson. o/>. cit.; "An Act for Laying a Duty on Negro, Indian 
and Mulatto Slaves," etc. 
^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iv, p. 196. 
^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 293. * Bradford, Statutes. 



,5 34 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

every thousand staves of thirty-five inches and under, and 
higher rates according to an established scale if they 
were longer. Also such persons must pay thirty shill- 
ings for every thousand of heading of any sort and nine 
pence for bolts whereof staves or headings could be made. 
Payment was to be made to the collector or his deputy, 
and the penalty was forfeiture of the goods. Masters of 
vessels were required to enter into bond yearly with the 
collector to the sum of £i,ooo that they would not ship 
any articles contrary to the act, and any master or other 
person violating the act was to forfeit £20. The law was 
to be enforced for ten years and no longer. 

The purpose of the act was to bring about the grind- 
ing and bolting of the wheat before it was exported.' It 
was also thought that it would encourage the making of 
casks within the province. As the representatives and 
people of West Jersey were not in favor of the measure, 
it was not applied to them. The motive was of course 
to benefit East Jersey, even at the expense of the neigh- 
boring provinces of New York and Pennsylvania. The 
law was not re-enacted during the union period and 
therefore expired in 1735. 

Of different nature was an act passed in 1730 under 
Montgomerie imposing upon masters of vessels bring- 
ing into the province persons previously convicted of 
heinous crimes a duty of £5 per head." They were also 
to be bound in £50 for the good behavior of such 
convict for one year. The act also provided at length 
against efforts to avoid its conditions and fixed heavy 
penalties against those making them. But this elemen- 
tary immigration law went into effect too late to pro- 
duce any striking results during the union period. 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 105. 'AUinson, op. cit. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



535 



Though the laws summarized above have much inter- 
est and importance as reveaHng the economic and social 
policy of the colony, they were doubtless of little account 
as direct sources of income to the government. Of 
more value in this direction was the excise upon all 
strong liquors retailed, established in 1716.' The charges 
made upon keepers of public houses in the acts for sup- 
port had, of course, been really a tax upon the retailing 
of liquor, but previously there had been no separate 
excise. The excise of 1716 laid a duty of twelve pence 
per gallon on all rum, brandy, wine and other spirits re- 
tailed under the quantity of two gallons, and of four shil- 
lings six pence upon every barrel of cider retailed under 
the quantity of five gallons ; and for every barrel of beer 
retailed, two shillings, and for every gallon of " cider 
royal " and metheglin, six shillings per gallon. The 
proceeds were for the support of the government. The 
act was, however, limited to five years, and it was not 
renewed. The same object was, however, secured by 
laying a heavier charge upon inn-keepers in the regular 
acts of support under Burnet." 

The excise was by a clause in the act of 1716 farmed 
out to David Lyell and William Bradford for the full five 
years. In return they were to pay the crown £300 yearly. 
They and their deputies were given the right to enter 
into all houses and cellars belonging to retailers of strong- 
drink, to gauge and take account of all such liquors, and 
in case the retailers refused to enter into bond to pay the 
duties the farmers might seize all the liquors. Further, 
all retailers were to declare to the farmers or to such dep- 
deputies as they should appoint in each county the quan- 

^ Laws Enacted in 1716 (Bradford print), 
' Laws Enacted in 1722-3 ( Bradford print) . 



C36 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

tity and quality of such liquors as they received. All 
liquors not reported were to be seized and three times 
the value thereof forfeited. There were the usual pro- 
visions inflicting penalties against those who tried to 
avoid the act on various pretexts, but the farmers were 
on their part held strictly accountable to the governor, 
council, and general assembly at the end of the five years. 
The act concluded with the characteristic provision that, 
to prevent the charging of unreasonable prices for liquor 
or provisions by public-house keepers, the justices of the 
peace in their sessions should fix the prices of all such 
articles. 

Such was the system of taxation existing in the pro- 
vince down to 1738. Doubtless it was crude and un- 
scientific, yet it seems to have been in general fairly just 
in its distribution of the burdens. As in all the colonies, 
there was grumbling enough over the payment of taxes, 
though there was no effort to establish any other system.' 
In a society where wealth consisted chiefly of land and 
tangible objects, the problem of taxation was of course 
far simpler than under present conditions. 

It cannot, however, be maintained that the arrange- 
ments for tax collecting worked smoothly, for the pro- 
vince was in continual difficulty because the taxes were 
nearly always in arrears. This was especially the case 
under Hunter. The difficulties experienced in collecting 
the taxes under that able governor were, however, un- 
doubtedly due to a systematic effort made by the faction 
of Coxe and Basse to embarrass and, if possible, over- 
throw the chief executive.* 

' Unless we consider as such the efforts to lighten taxation through 
the issue of bills of credit. 
"^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv. p. 232. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 537 

There is little evidence regarding the raising of the 
revenues under Cornbury and Lovelace. In 1713, how- 
ever, the sixth assembly, after investigating through 
committees the accounts of the taxes since 1708, felt it 
necessary to pass a special act for collecting the arrear- 
ages.' But the great conflict between the governor and 
Daniel Coxe and his supporters in the seventh assembly 
increased the disorder. During the second session of 
the seventh assembly another law was enacted "to 
Enforce the Payment of all Public Taxes." ^ But this 
certainly did not remedy the evil. In the third, or 
Chesterfield session of the same body, a full investigation 
of the accounts was made by the house in committee of 
the whole, and a startling condition revealed.-^ It ap- 
peared that the province was in arrears £380 on the 
taxes for support voted since Hunter took ofifice, besides 
£327 on the taxes for the first Canada expedition, and a 
further sum which could not be exactly estimated upon 
the £5,000 tax for the second expedition. The worst 
condition existed in Burlington County, where the in- 
fluence of Coxe was strong, and where Hewlings, a sup- 
porter of Coxe, was assessor. So bitter was his partisan- 
ship, that he preferred to incur the penalties for failure 
in his duties rather than assess.'' On the taxes for sup- 
port for the years 171 1, 1712, 1714 and 1715 Burlington 
was in arrears no less than £246 8s lod.^ The assembly, 
in consequence, passed a bill to enforce the payment of 
340 ounces of plate in the county of Burlington, that 
sum being its share of the £5,000 tax for the year 17144 

^Assembly Journal, Feb. 9, 1713-4. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 261. 

^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 51; Assembly Journal, Jan. 14, 1716-17. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 292. ^Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 52. 



>3S 



THE PROVINCE OF XEW JERSEY 



and voted to address Hunter to order the prosecution of 
all concerned in the mismanagement of the taxes.' The 
act for the more regailar choosing and electing assessors 
and collectors, previously described, was also a result of 
this session. 

But in spite of the efforts of the assembly, the auditing 
of the accounts in the spring session of 1 718-19 showed 
that there was still due as arrears of taxes a sum which, 
with interest, amounted to £891 9s 5d. Accordingly, 
in the act of support prepared during the meeting, provi- 
sion was made for assessing and raising from the various 
counties in addition to the new tax their share of the 
arrears. Burlington was to pay ±295 and Hunterdon 
£198.' 

These means seem to have been fairly effective, as the 
examination of accounts by Burnet's eighth assembly in 
1722 revealed only Comparatively small arrears. Thus 
there was due from Burlington, though this did not in- 
clude the support voted in 1718, only £15 12s. Several 
counties were completely paid up. The total due was 
£207 15s.-' 

From this point on the collection of the taxes e^*i- 
dently became a matter of less difficulty. We find that 
the arrears due in West Jersey for 1722. 1723, and 1724 
were only £2 I9s.^ while, during the service of Michael 
Kearney as treasurer of East Jersey, in 1723 and 1724 that 
division actually overpaid £1 17s.- There was. however, 

^Assrmdh Journal. Jan. 15. 1716-17. Basse's speech, the only 
Speech recorded in the assembly joiaTial, was made upon the financial 
situation. 

*L(ru's EnacUd in 171S-I9 ( Bradford print): Assembly Journal. 
March 17. 1716-19. 

^ Assembly Journal. Apr. 27, 1722. *Ibid.. Airg. 20, 1725. 

^Ibid. The statement refers only to the regular tax for strpport of the 
grovemment. The surplus payment was from Essex Co. 



FIN AX CI A L AFFAIRS 



539 



a deficiency in the revenue for 1726. The taxes were 
again short £28. due from Burlington, Cape May and 
Middlesex. Moreover the collector of Piscataway 
" eloped "" with the greater part of the taxes raised 
there in 1722.' The deficiency was nevertheless not re- 
garded as ver>' serious. Later auditings by the legisla- 
tive committees, as those of 1730' and 1733.' also show 
some arrears in the raising of taxes. 

But. all things considered, it is not surprising that it 
was difficult to raise taxes promptly in a community 
such as New Jersey then was. The continual arrears 
evidently caused much labor and anxiety to both gov- 
ernors and assemblies, but the system still worked well 
enough to answer the needs of the province and perhaps 
as well as any arrangement which would have respected 
the individual liberty oi the people. 

The first issue of bills of credit in Xew jersey was 
under Ingoldsby in 1709 and was made to provide funds 
for the equipment of Xew Jersey's quota to the Nich- 
olson-Vetch expedition to Canada. The sum issued was 
£3000. The issue was covered by a tax for the same 
amount, to be raised in annual instalments for a term of 
years.* 

In some respects this first experiment was not very 
happy. A committee, consisting of Thomas Pike, Capt. 
Farmar. John Royse and Elisha Parker or any three of 
them, was named to sign the bills. But Royse died be- 
fore any of the bills were issued. The survivors then, 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 5, 1727-^- 

Ibid.. July r, 1730. 'Ibid.. Aug. 11. 1733. 

' Xew Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 468. The act desig^nated special 
treasurers for the handling of these funds. Miles Forster, the regular 
provincial treasurer was. however, named as special treasurer for East 
Jersey. Dr. John Roberts was appointed for West Jersey. 



-40 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

without any authority, associated with themselves Adam 
Hude to sign the bills. Some of the bills Hude signed 
with all three of his colleagues, but most of them with 
only two. Moreover the form of the bills which the 
committee caused to be printed was thought to be not 
exactly like that specified in the act.' 

Difificulty naturally resulted, and it seems probable that 
the colony actually suffered loss through the hesitation 
of merchants of neighboring colonies to accept the bills.' 
The matter naturally came up at the next meeting of the 
assembly, and the representatives prepared a bill "for 
Amending and Explaining the Act for the Currency of 
Bills of Credit for £3000." The object of this measure 
was to legalize what the commissioners had done and 
enforce the currency of the existing bills. But the coun- 
cil, which desired only to involve the leaders of the pro- 
prietary party in trouble, amended the bill.^ Meanwhile 
petitions were received from numerous m>erchants of 
New York and Philadelphia, among whom were Peter 
Fauconnier and William Trent, praying that the house 
would not confirm the existing bills, but that they might 
be heard.'' The hearing was given, and so effective were 
the statements of the merchants that the house accepted 
the council changes in the bill.^ The bill, however, was 
not acted upon further by the council and so was lost. 
This result may have been partly due to the sharp feel- 
ing between the houses which had resulted from the 
work of the joint committee of investigation into the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 414. "^Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 417. 

' Previously it had sent down a bill declaring the bills of credit null 
and void. But the house rejected it immediately. New Jersey Archives, 
vol. xiii, p. 419. 

"^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 27, 28, 1709-10. 

^ Ibid., Jan. 28, 1709-10. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



541 



handlino^ of the Canada expedition and the issue of the 
bills of credit. 

After receiving the report of its committee, the coun- 
cil passed a set of resolutions declaring that Pike, Parker 
and Farmar had acted illegally and committed a breach 
of trust. Hude had committed a high crime and mis- 
demeanor. Such conduct was said to be an encourage- 
ment to counterfeiting. All bills signed only by Hude 
and two others were declared void, and all four persons 
were said to be guilty of the grossest misconduct. An 
attack was also made upon the managers and the com- 
missary of the expedition. Though a statement of the 
accounts of the expedition was laid before the assembly 
by Gordon and Basse, who had been employed to go 
over them, the house took no formal action thereon. 

The financial difficulty thus created added to the 
troubles under which the province was laboring when 
Hunter took office. Some legislation regarding the 
bills of credit was, of course, absolutely necessary, and 
in spite of the bitter conflict between the council and 
general assembly which spoiled the session of 1710-11, 
an act was passed "for Amending and Explaining an 
Act entitled an Act for Enforcing the Currency of 
£3,000 Bills of Credit." This declared the existing bills 
legal. But the measure was much weakened by the loss 
of an amendment declaring the offer and refusal of such 
bills legal payment of all debts.' 

The session of July, 171 1, was called by Hunter in 
order to make provision for New Jersey's quota to the 
Walker expedition against Canada. The assembly voted 
to do so by the issue of new bills of credit to the value 
of 12,500 ounces of plate. ^ As in the previous case, 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 416 et seq. "^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 64. 



^42 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

these were to be sunk b)^ a tax for the raising of £5,000. 
This tax was to be paid in ten yearly instalments, and 
was to cover also the interest on the old bills and the 
cost of raising both taxes.' The new issue was thus 
again made in response to a patriotic need. The bills of 
credit were now nevertheless fastened upon the colony 
for several years, and the handling and sinking of the 
bills became naturally one of the chief subjects of con- 
sideration at sessions of the legislature of the province. 
The bills of credit undeniably filled a need in supply- 
ing the province with a currency. Yet the system 
brought with it real dangers, though these did not show 
themselves at once. The issues of the bills up to the 
point we have reached had certainly been rendered prac- 
tically necessary by the burdens of the war. 

During the session of 1713-14 it, however, appeared 
that Thomas Gordon, the treasurer, had in his hands the 
sum of £999 13s 3d over and above the cost of the recent 
abortive expedition.^ The assembly promptly appro- 
priated this amount for the support of the government 
from June 23, 1712 to Sept. 23, 1713. This measure 
was one of the few formally confirmed by the Crown 
during the union period.^ But immediately afterward 
the representatives prepared and carried through a 
bill to " Continue and Revive the Currency of the Bills 
of Credit Appointed to be Sunk in the year 1712 and 

^Assembly Journal, July 10, 11, 12, 1711. The method of levying the 
tax was like that of the regular taxes for support of the government. 
Special treasurers were again named in the act; Gordon for East Jersey, 
and Thomas Gardiner for West Jersey. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 23, 1713. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iv, p. 217. Cornbury, now Earl of Clar- 
endon, vainly entered objection on the ground that a large part of his 
own salary as governor of New Jersey was still unpaid. Ibid., vol. iv, 
p. 199. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



543 



1713 and to Enable Thomas Gordon, Treasurer of this 
Province to pay in the said Bills, the Several Sums of 
money due to Several persons having warrants etc."' 
This is the first indication of any desire on the part of 
colonists to make the bills of credit a permanent feature 
of their finance. The measure seems to have been passed 
with little notice by the governor, while the home 
authorities do not refer to it at all. 

During the third, or Chesterfield, session of the 
seventh assembly there were further developments. 
Gordon submitted the accounts of the bills of credit he 
had issued in accordance with the act of 1 713-14. But 
as he had not brought with him all the bills of credit in 
his possession, he was required to go to Amboy and 
fetch them.* Eventually the bills of both the £3000 and 
the £5000 tax were examined by the committee of the 
council, and forthwith sunk and destroyed with the ex- 
ception of £8 5s which were found to be counterfeit. ' 
The center of the stage was then seized by Jeremiah 
Basse, who had only recently been taken into favor by 
Hunter.'* Basse delivered a speech upon the financial 
situation which seems to have been regarded as such an 
effort that it was reported at length in the Assembly 
Journal ; the only instance during the union period of a 
recorded speech by a member of either house. Basse 
described the position of the province in terms indeed 
affecting. If the taxes were paid up, all the bills of 
credit would have been redeemed and money would be 
in the treasury. But now they were indebted £1700 and 

^Assembly Journal, March 5, 1713-14; New Jersey Archives, vol. 
xiii, p. 541, 

* Assembly Journal, Jan. 3, 1716-17. 

*Ibid., Jan. 10, 11, 1716-17. ^Ibid., Jan, 15, 1716-17. 



^^ THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

odd in bills, and the treasury was empty. Their ill 
circumstances were increased by the deadness of trade, 
the poverty of the province and the cheapness of its 
products. But the chief causes of their woes were the 
disastrous expeditions to Canada and their own discords. 
The negligence of their officers and the scarcity of 
money had also contributed. The veteran politician 
then made a touching plea for unity on the lines of the 
golden rule. But the situation must be met. To levy a 
new tax was impossible. It would be foolish to levy 
money at interest. Therefore he washed a new issue of 
bills of credit secured by an indubitable sinking fund. 
This means he thought in ever}- way the most easy and 
expedient for paying their debts. 

After debate the house acquiesced in this irresistible 
conclusion and named a committee to draw a bill for the 
issue of more paper money.' Accordingly an act entitled 
" An Act for the Currency of Bills of Credit up to 11,675 
ounces of plate" was prepared and passed.'' The paper 
money system was thus definitely continued. 

No further legislation upon the currency was necessary 
until 1723. The provisions already made were, however, 
carefully carried out. In the session of 1718 bills of 
credit to the amount of £3,436 17s 6d were sunk. £1,827 
15s of this sum was composed of new bills. ^ In 1722 the 
finances were found in a satisfactory state, and the taxes 
were declared sufficient to redeem all the bills.-* 

The session of 1723, under Burnet, is notable for the 
introduction of a new feature into the financial system of 
the colony, — the loan offices. That the establishment of 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 15, 1716-17. 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 65. 

* Assembly Journal, March 4. 171S-IQ. *Ibid., Apr. 27, 1722. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 545 

such a system had long been under contemplation, is 
proved by the fact that, in 1716, a curious paper had been 
submitted to the assembly by Judge Pinhorne, who had 
been for some time in political retirement, arguing 
against the plan which he thought would be advanced of 
loaning sums in bills of credit to the inhabitants of the 
colony at 5 per cent, upon landed security.' He urged, 
instead, the loaning of the sums gratis upon proper 
security, one-twentieth to be repaid annually in silver. 
The silver returned could be easily put out at common 
interest, and the income would make a sure provision for 
sinking the bills and give the province a handsome profit. 

We fortunately have the full text of the act of 1723 
"for an additional support of this government and mak- 
ing current £40,000 in bills of credit for that and other 
purposes therein mentioned."^ As Burnet himself ex- 
plained to the Lords of Trade, the colony had now fully 
determined to have paper money.^ His instructions, how- 
ever, allowed bills of credit to be issued only in acts for 
support. Hence the peculiar title and form of the bill. 
The act itself set forth that many petitions'* had been 
received stating that the silver and gold formerly current 
had been almost entirely exported to Great Britain, a fact 
which involved the Jerseys in hardship for want of a cur- 
rency. New York and Pennsylvania had remedied this 
want by issuing bills of credit, but these were not legal 
tender in New Jersey. 

Therefore the assembly enacted that bills of credit to 
the amount of £40000 according to the Queen's proclama- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 26g. 
*Nevill, Statutes of New Jersey. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 75, 86. 
*See Assembly Journal, Oct. 8, 1723. 



-46 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

tion be forthwith issued. These were to be 4000 bills of 
£3 value, 8000 of £1 IDS., 8000 of 15s., 8000 of 12s., 
8000 of 3s., 12,000 of IS. 6d., and 14,000 of is. The 
form of the bills was carefully described, and a commit- 
tee was named to sign, number and indent them. The 
committee consisted of John Parker, Peter Bard, R. L. 
Hooper and James Trent, or any three of them. They 
were directed to administer an oath to the printer to 
prevent fraud on his part like the striking of extra 
copies. When the bills were signed, £3000 was to be 
given to the treasurer of the Eastern division, £1000 to 
the treasurer of the Western division and the rest to the 
commissioners of the loan offices in the several counties. 
The sums to be given to the several counties were speci- 
fied in the bill, Monmouth receiving the greatest amount, 
£6,033 and Cape May the smallest, £1,115. 

Two or three reliable persons were then named as 
commissioners of the loan office in each county. The 
list included such names as Col. Josiah Ogden of Essex, 
Thomas Farmar of Somerset, William Trent of Hunter- 
don, and Daniel Coxe of Burlington. The commissioners 
were to be put upon proper oath and security, and the 
commissioners of each county were declared to be bodies 
politic and corporate. They were empowered to use a 
common seal, to sue and be sued and generally to use 
all powers necessary to their trust. 

The commissioners were to lend the bills of credit to 
such as applied and would give security by mortgage on 
lands, lots, houses, or other valuable improvements 
lying in the same county. But this was to be done only 
after proper advertisement that the commissioners would 
receive borrowers at a certain day and place, and all were 
to be served according to priority unless reasonable ex- 
ception was offered to the titles and values of the lands 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 547 

ofifered. If the security was good, the money was to be 
loaned at five per cent for twelve years in sums not over 
£100 nor under £12 12s. to any one person. The 
security taken by way of mortgage was to be double the 
value of the property, except in the case of houses, when 
it was to be three times the value. Every year £8 los. 
was to be repaid on each £100 borrowed and so for the 
first ten years, and £7 los. for every £100 for the last two 
years. There must also be paid five per cent per annum 
for the sum borrowed or remaining in the hands of the 
borrower. Sums lent out after the original date were to 
be repaid in such instalments that the amounts with in- 
terest might be all paid in on March 25, 1736. Bor- 
rowers, however, had the option of repaying the entire 
sums taken up at any time before the date of final pay- 
ment. Such amounts were to be loaned out again. 

If any borrower failed to make payment, his mortage 
was to be foreclosed in thirty days and his lands sold to 
the highest bidder. But all sums resulting from the sale, 
over and above the amount lent and the interest money, 
were to be returned to the borrower. 

The bills of credit issued by the act were to have cur- 
rency for twelve years between man and man, but should 
be received as good by the provincial treasurer for six 
months thereafter and no longer. Further, they were to 
be received at the value expressed upon their face. The 
tender of bills of credit for the payment of any debt was to 
be just as effectual as if the same sum of specie had been 
offered. Tender of payment in bills of credit before two 
credible witnesses was to extinguish any debt. Any 
person refusing the bills upon the sale of goods or ask- 
ing a greater value in bills was to be fined. If an in- 
habitant of New Jersey refused the bills in some other 
province or asked discount, he was to forfeit any sum 



C548 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

for which he should be sued, up to one fourth the value 
of the goods involved or one fourth the money offered 
plus the whole discount. If the prosecutor vi^as a person 
living outside of the province, he was to be allowed ten 
shillings per diem while engaged in the suit and six 
shillings for witnesses, if they were not above two. 
These charges were to come out of the costs of the suit. 
All counterfeiters of bills and those who aided them 
were to suffer death. 

The bill then went on to prescribe in detail the duties 
and procedure of the commissioners of the loan office. 
The commissioners were every year to pay the interest 
money received to the treasurer of the province. Their 
accounts were to be annually inspected by the justices 
and the "chosen freeholders" of their county. Bills of 
credit paid in were to be sunk in the presence of the 
county board, but the tops and bottoms of the said bills 
were to be preserved in bundles and delivered to the 
treasurer. In return for these services the commis- 
sioners were to receive payments varying from £9 in 
Cape May to £25 in Monmouth. 

Finally, as has previously been described, the act pro- 
vided for the better sinking of the bills by levying an 
annual tax of £1000 for ten years. 

As the necessary supplement of this first great loan- 
ofifice act there was passed at the same session an act 
" Concerning the Duty of the Commissioners appointed 
to manage the Loan Offices . . . and for Providing a 
Remedy in Case any of the Signers of the Bills of Credit 
of this Province should by Death or Otherwise be rend- 
ered incapable of signing the same." ' This law care- 
fully prescribed the forms of the mortgages and other 

' Nevill, Statutes of New Jersey. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 549 

securities to be taken by the commissioners. It named 
two substitute signers to act in case any of the four men 
originally named became incapable and ordered that, if 
further disability occurred, the governor should appoint. 

What was probably the opinion of the most thought- 
ful and experienced men in the province was expressed 
by Burnet in his letter of May 12, 1724, to the lords.' 
In this he assured them that the act was so carefully 
framed that the difficulties which had resulted in New 
England and Carolina from the issue of paper money 
were here impossible. In this letter there was also 
enclosed a further argument in favor of the bills by so 
conservative a man as James Alexander,' Alexander 
pointed out that, as an act of New York making bills of 
credit current for twenty-one years had been approved. 
New Jersey must in any case have paper money for a 
longer period than her own act specified. He advanced 
the old pleas of the necessity of currency and the hard- 
ships brought upon the debtor class by the scarcity of 
money. An increase in the currency would aid trade 
and industry of all kinds. Lastly, he showed that New 
York and Pennsylvania now gained all the interest from 
the paper money current in New Jersey. This condition 
was manifestly unjust. 

No further important legislation regarding the cur- 
rency was needed for some time. The session of the 
assembly in 1725 did, however, pass a bill providing for 
the naming of new commissioners of the loan office, in 
case of death or resignation, without compelling the 
governor to journey to New Jersey and summon a 
council, as had formerly been required,^ New commis- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 86. ^Ibid., vol. v, p. 94. 

* Bradford, Statutes. 



550 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

sioners were to be chosen by the justices of the county, 
with the "chosen freeholders,"' upon a mandate issued 
by any two justices upon a written order from the gov- 
ernor. The same act also provided that the sinking of 
such part of the £4000 devoted by the measure of 1723 
to the support of the government as might be necessary 
might take place before the governor and council alone 
if the assembly was not in session during the year. This 
provision was to prevent a large sum in bills from being 
left for several years in the hands of the treasurer. The 
act of 1725. however, concerned only matters of detail 
and made no real change in the system. 

The session of 1727 brought more important legisla- 
tion, legislation which shows at the same time the suc- 
cess of the loan-of^ce system of 1723 and the dangers 
involved in it. The most important measure was an act 
"for the making of £24.760 in bills of credit in order to 
exchange the bills of credit formerly made current in this 
province by an act passed in 1723."' The preamble 
states that, of the bills issued in 1723, £24,760 were still 
current. But it had been found that counterfeits of 
several thousands pounds had been made in Ireland and 
passed in neighboring colonies. Man}-^ of the old bills 
were also much worn. New bills were therefore to be 
printed and signed by John Stevens and Isaac Decowe. 
The new bills were to be only two inches by four in size, 
so that folding would be unnecessary. The)' were to be 
countersigned also bv the treasurers of the two divisions 
respectively. Regulations were also made for exchang- 
ing these for the old bills without charging fees to those 

' Nevill, Statutes. The new bills were to be: icco each of £6 and 
jCz- 4000 each of 30s. and 15s., 5000 each of 12s. and 6s.. 7000 of 3s.. 
8000 of IS. 6d., and 12,200 of is. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



551 



holding them. The old bills were to be good in trans- 
actions between man and man for only five months after 
the ensuing first of June, but they were to be received in 
exchange for a whole year and no longer. Advertise- 
ment of the necessity of exchanging the bills was to be 
made by the treasurers in New York and Philadelphia 
papers. The currency of these new bills was to be for 
the same period as had been enacted for the original 
£40,000. Finally, as a further precaution against frauds, 
two boards of inspectors were appointed, one for each 
division. These inspectors w^ere to administer oaths to 
the treasurers and signers, to attend and see the cancel- 
ling of the old bills, and to have some supervision over 
the treasurers in their work of exchanging the bills. 

In the same session a bill was passed reducing by 
nearly one-half the salaries of the commissioners of the 
loan offices.' It was said that experience had shown 
that the previous salaries were excessive. 

Under the weak Montgomerie the advocates of an 
increased paper currency evidently met little check ; and 
New Jersey, like so many frontier communities, sought 
increased prosperity in an increased currency. In 1730 
the assembly passed an " Act the better to Enable the 
Inhabitants of this colony to Support Government, Dis- 
charge their Engagements in the Loan Offices, and for 
Relieving their Other Necessities by Making Current 
£20,000 in Bills of Credit." ' In its main features this 
bill was like that of 1723, which we have given at length, 
and it seems to have been remembered in the province 
as the "Second Loan Office Act."'' The £20,000 in 
bills was to have currency for sixteen years. As before, 

'Nevill, op. cit. 

'So described in Allinson's Statutes. 



2^2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the money was to be distributed among the commis- 
sioners of the loan offices to be loaned on proper landed 
security at 5 per cent, interest. One-sixteenth of the 
sum loaned, with the interest, was to be repaid each 
year. The form of the new bills was to be like those 
authorized in 1727, except for such distinction of color 
as was necessary to separate the two issues. All the 
arrangements for loaning the bills, obtaining the securi- 
ties and handling the funds were similar to those of the 
first land-office act.' 

There were, however, some few new features. Bills 
to the amount of £5,000 additional were to be printed 
and signed, in order to be exchanged for bills which 
were soiled or worn out. These duplicate bills were to 
be kept by the treasurers and exchanged gratis. There 
was also a further reduction in the salaries of the loan 
commissioners. As before, payment of principal bor- 
rowed might be made in gold, silver, or wheat, at a dis- 
count of four pence per bushel on the selling price at 
New York or Philadelphia. Old bills of credit might 
also be received. 

This act levied no tax to secure any part of the issue, 
nor did it specify how the interest money was to be ex- 
pended. In these respects it marked an advance in the 
paper money idea. The same assembly, moreover, passed 
an act "to enforce the payment of the incidental charges 
of this government out of the interest money by a former 
law of this province subjected to future appropriation."^ 

* These bills were: 625 of ^6, 1250 of jC3, 2500 of 30s., 5000 of 15s., 
7500 each of 12s. and 6s., 10,000 of 3s., 12,500 of is. 6d., and 16,250 of 
IS. The signers were Richard Smith, Caleb Raper, Andrew Johnstone 
and Michael Kearney. 

* Bradford, Statutes of New Jersey. The former act was of course 
that of 1727 8, spoken of in the chapter on taxation. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



553 



With regard to the second land-office act, Montgom- 
erie did so far respect the wishes of the lords as to insist 
upon the addition of a clause suspending its operation 
until the pleasure of the Crown was learned. But he 
wrote home, vigorously advocating the passage of the 
law on the ground that the province was suffering from 
a contracted currency. The measure was approved by 
the king in council. May 4, 1732, after the receipt of a 
memorial from Richard Partridge, New Jersey's efficient 
agent. 

Under the circumstances, it was only natural that the 
next assembly — that of 1733 — should pass a third land 
office act for the making of £40,000 in bills of credit. 
The preamble set forth that, since the bills previously 
issued had obtained wide circulation in other colonies, and 
since three-fourths of the £40,000 in bills formerly made 
current had been retired, the colony was, notwithstand- 
ing the recent issue of £20,000 in bills, suffering from 
an insufficient currency. The act then went on to 
authorize the issue of the £40,000 of new bills. £io,oco 
more were also to be printed and exchanged by the 
treasurers for old and soiled bills, as under the act of 
1730. The bills were to have currency for sixteen years 
between man and man, but were to be taken by the 
treasurers and commissioners for six months more. As 
under the earlier loan acts, the bills were to be dis- 
tributed among the counties and loaned at five per cent 
interest. The provisions for repayment were like those 
of 1730. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 289. -Ibid., vol. v, p. 304. 

^ Nevill, Statutes of New Jersey; " the Third Loan Office Act." 
* These bills were as to denomination: icoo of £b, 2000 of ;^3, 4000 of 
30s., 8000 of 15s., i2,oco of I2S. 6d., 16,000 of 3s., 20,000 of IS. 6d., 
26,000 of IS. The additional bills were: 250 of £t, 500 of ^3, 1000 of 



^54 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

It was ordained, however, since there had been com- 
plaints against the management of some of the loan 
offices, that there should be a new choice of commission- 
ers. This choice was to be made by the justices and 
chosen freeholders of each county, upon notice by the 
provincial secretary. The salaries of the commissioners 
were again raised, as the amount of business they were 
to handle would be greater. Their emoluments were to 
be paid from the interest money received. 

It was established also that, if by any possibility there 
was such failure in the payments of any county as to 
cause a deficiency, the county board was to levy said 
sum upon the inhabitants. Such levy was, however, not 
to be made until after sale of the premises mortgaged. 
In respect to its other provisions the act of 1733 was 
similar to those of 1723 and 1730. 

The assembly passed still another bill appropriating 
part of the interest money to the incidental charges of 
the government. This measure had, however, a clause 
suspending its operation till it could be approved by the 
Crown, and it was eventually confirmed. 

Cosby was evidently not as enthusiastic over paper 
money as Burnet and Montgomerie. He, nevertheless, 
wrote to the lords in favor of the new act.' All were 
agreed that it was necessary, he said, and he was so 
pressed that he could not avoid passing it. The colony 
certainly labored under great need of a currency. There 
was, however, a conflict in London regarding the fate 
of the act. A list of reasons was presented to Secretary 

30s., 2000 of 155., 3000 each of 12s. and 6s., 4000 of 3s., 5000 of is. 6d., 
and 6000 of IS. The bills were signed by any three of: John Stevens, 
Robert Hude, John Allen and Isaac Decowe. 
''^ New Jersey Archives , vol. v, p. 365. 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



555 



Popple by John Sharpe, solicitor, for the disallowance of 
the act.' Among other arguments he said that New 
Jersey had already issued £60000 in bills, of which £30000 
still existed. To issue more would lessen the credit of 
the former bills. Before the passage of the measure New 
Jersey paper had been preferred to that of New York, but 
since it appeared that due care was not given to the sink- 
ing of the bills, the people of New York were now very 
unwilling to take Jersey paper. Sharpe likewise took 
exception to many of the penalties established and to 
other details of the bill. Richard Partridge once more 
proved his usefulness to the colony by presenting a reply 
to the objections of Solicitor Sharp,' and the act was 
eventually approved.^ It was certainly not radically dif- 
ferent in its general character from the earlier laws. 

Thus, at the end of the union period, New Jersey was 
thoroughly committed to a paper currency, and so con- 
vinced were her representatives of the advantages to be 
gained by expanding the issues that there was certainly 
some danger that the credit of the colony might eventu- 
ally suffer. It would no doubt be out of place here to 
undertake any discussion of the principles of finance 
involved in the issues of the colonial bills of credit. But 
the reader should be warned to pass no judgment upon 
the matter without taking carefully into consideration 
the actual financial condition of the province, and espe- 
cially the undeniable scarcity of any proper medium of 
exchange suitable for larger business transactions. It 
was owing neither to accident nor to any dishonest 
desire to escape lightly from debts that the people of the 
Jerseys were a unit in favoring paper money. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. v, p. 410. "^Ibid., vol. v, p. 416. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 531. 



^^6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Up to the point we have reached New Jersey had 
suffered few of the evils which came to some of the 
other colonies through the issue of paper bills. The 
evidence regarding the rate at which her bills passed is 
indeed to be obtained chiefly in the statements of those 
favoring the bills of credit. Yet apparently they were 
stating only well-known facts when they asserted that 
the Jersey bills were preferred to those of New York. 
In 1726 Burnet enclosed in a letter to the lords of trade 
certain statements regarding their circulating value. 
One of these was signed by twenty-one merchants of 
New York.' It set forth that at first the New Jersey 
bills of 1724 decreased in value in New York, passing at 
the rate of seven shillings as equal to six shillings of 
New York bills. Later even this was scrupled. But in 
the second year they gradually rose until Jersey money 
was preferred. At the time the statement was drawn it 
was at a premium of from six to twelve pence per pound. 
A second statement was regarding the value of New 
Jersey paper money at Perth Amboy."* This certificate 
was signed by fourteen persons, including Andrew John- 
stone, Fenwick Lyell and Michael Kearney. It set forth 
that the bills had always passed current in New Jersey 
and in Pennsylvania without discount. It was true that 
in 1725 there appeared a discount of 15 per cent on the 
bills as against gold. This still existed, but had dropped 
to five or six per cent, and in small sums had disap- 
peared entirely. In New York the Jersey money was 
at a premium. 

We may accept these assertions without being led 
thereby into unqualified approval of the financial methods 
of our colony. But it certainly seems that, up to 1738, 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 153. ^Ibid., vol. v, p. IS4- 



FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 



557 



she had been more conservative than several of her 
neighbors, had avoided their mistakes so far as possible, 
and thereby gained substantial results. 

It is evident that the home authorities regarded the 
issue of paper money with suspicion. For this attitude 
results elsewhere had given good cause. The governor's 
instructions forbade the issue of bills of credit, except in 
acts of support, unless the measures contained a clause 
suspending their operation until confirmed by the Crown.' 
All the executives, in writing to their superiors advocat- 
ing the passage of acts for bills of credit, assumed a de- 
fensive tone, which showed clearly that they knew that 
the authorities at home disliked any policy of inflation. 
But it is also clear that as regards New Jersey, at any 
rate, the home authorities objected not so much to the 
issue of bills of credit as to the immediate employment 
of the interest money obtained therefrom as a means of 
lessening taxation.'' None of the acts for bills of credit 
were disallowed, nor did the lords of trade reprove gov- 
ernors for passing them. Their attitude regarding the 
appropriation of the interest has, however, been brought 
out elsewhere. If not creditable to their firmness, it 
illustrates at least their caution. 

In direct contrast with the attitude of the home 
authorities stands that of the colonial governors. All 
of them who had to handle the subject at all approved 
the paper money policy, while Burnet and Montgomerie 
made themselves virtually the advocates of the assembly 
in this respect. By approving the bills of credit the 
governors gained an increased income for themselves 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 3. 

'The attitude of the Lords of Trade is most clearly brought out in 
their letter of June 28, 1726 to Burnet; New Jersey Archives, vol. v, 
p. 120. 



r qg THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

and their subordinates, and at the same time made them- 
selves exceedingly popular. Doubtless colonial opinion 
would not, as Cosby thought, tolerate opposition in this 
field. But Burnet and Montgomerie were men of honor, 
men whose careers show that they were willing to face 
public disapproval if they deemed it in line with their 
duty. We must suppose that they honestly believed 
that the conditions of the province required the issue of 
a paper currency. 



CHAPTER XXV 

The Militia System 

It is probably impossible, after this lapse of time, to 
write an accurate and detailed description of the militia 
system of the province of New Jersey. Fortunately for 
the colony, its defensive arrangements were never tested 
by actual invasion or insurrection, and although the out- 
lines of its system may be traced in the colonial legisla- 
tion, we are only able to infer how fully the laws were 
carried out. In practice, the military unit was the town 
company rather than the regiment which was never 
assembled or exercised as a body. It therefore depended 
upon local spirit and traditions whether the company 
was really efificient. It seems highly probable that in 
those communities of East Jersey which were of New 
England origin the militia companies were in some de- 
gree efificient. On the other hand, it is clear that, owing 
to the influence of Quakerism on the Delaware, the mili- 
tary arrangements there were never effective. Much 
evidence goes to show that, considered as a colony. New 
Jersey was one of the least military in spirit. With the 
single exception of Pennsylvania, her military system 
was the loosest and weakest. The disregard of and dis- 
like for military affairs by the inhabitants was a continual 
complaint of her governors.' It was owing to circum- 
stances of situation and of international afifairs in which 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 53, 83, 280, 465, 471; vol. v, p. 319. 

559 



56o 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



the colony had no share that this weakness did not bring- 
disaster. 

There is one phase of the situation, however, upon which 
the student may speak with certainty. This is as to the 
relation between the questions of the militia and the 
politics of the colony. And, fortunately, it is just this 
phase of the matter which has most historical import- 
tance. Sheltered from attacks as New Jersey seemed to 
be, it meant little to her own people whether their militia 
was effective or not. It meant much, however, whether 
the colony should be compelled by executive influence to 
maintain a system which was contrary to its spirit, and 
whether the Friends, though nominally free from re- 
ligious persecution, should be actually subject to such 
persecution because of their objection to war. 

Among the powers entrusted to the governor, those 
relating to military matters occupied a prominent place. 
The governor's commission gave him the title of Captain 
General. ' He was given the power to " Levy, arm, 
muster, command and employ" all inhabitants and to re- 
sist and withstand all enemies, pirates and rebels by land 
and sea. He could transport forces outside of the col- 
ony for defense or pursuit of the enemy. The governor 
could, also, execute martial law in time of invasion, insur- 
rection, or war, and do everything pertaining to the 
place of Captain General.'' The right to erect and arm 
fortifications was given him as well as that to grant com- 
missions to masters of vessels to execute martial law at 
sea in time of war. This latter power, however, was 
not to extend to any jurisdiction over the royal navy.^ 

' New Jersey Archives , vol. ii, p. 4go. The title of " Captain General " 
stood before that of " Governor in Chief." 
^Ibid., vol. ii, p. 496. ^Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 497-8. 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 561 

Because of the sweeping powers given in the commis- 
sion, Cornbury's instructions do not give as much atten- 
tion to miHtary matters as might be expected. He was 
ordered to see that miHtary training did not interfere 
unneedfully with the inhabitants of New Jersey; martial 
law was never to be put into operation without the con- 
sent of the council ; and whereas the governor had no 
power to enforce martial law in time of peace, he was to 
urge the assembly to the passing of a militia act which 
would provide for the disciplining of the forces of the 
colony.' There were in the instructions certain articles 
intended to prevent disagreement between the governor 
and the officers of the royal navy. Cornbury was also 
required to transmit as soon as possible an account of 
all defenses and fortifications of New Jersey.- Since the 
defense of New York was too great for that colony 
alone, the governor was to "dispose" the assembly of 
New Jersey to contributions for that purpose according 
to a quota already prepared. ^ If any plantation, and 
especially New York, were in distress, Cornbury was to 
give such aid as possible.* For greater security, suitable 
officers were to be appointed in those parts of New Jer- 
sey "bordering on the Indians" who, in case of sudden 
invasion, might raise men and oppose the enemy until 
they received the governor's directions. ^ 

In considering the way in which Cornbury and his 
successors executed these directions, it must be remem- 
bered that a great war was then raging between England 
and France, that the American colonies were believed to 
be in real danger of invasion, and that in any case a gov- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, pp. 523-4. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 526. ''■Ibid., vol. ii, p. 532. 

*Jbid., vol. ii, p. 533. ^Ibid. 



^62 'rHE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

ernor who showed himself active and successful in mili- 
tary matters was almost sure to win the approval of the 
home authorities. 

In Cornbury's first official letter home, after assuming 
the administration of the Jerseys, he stated that he had 
" settled " the militia of the western division and had be- 
gun on that of East Jersey.' This "settlement" seems 
to have consisted of commissioning officers to command 
the companies in the various towns and districts. Orig- 
inally there was one regiment in West Jersey of which 
Daniel Coxe was named colonel.^ There was a company 
in Cape May,- two in Salem,** two in Gloucester,^ one in 
Burlington Town, and at least two in outlying townships 
of Burlington county.^ Each company had regularly 
three commissioned officers, a captain, a lieutenant, and 
an ensign. Hugh Huddy was major of the regiment.' 
Richard Townley was originally colonel of the East Jersey 
militia,^ but this force was later divided into two regi- 
ments, one in Middlesex and Monmouth, the other for 
Bergen and Essex. There were probably three compan- 
ies in Monmouth County,^ two in Middlesex, including 
Somerset,'" and two in Essex." The militia of Bergen 
does not seem to have been "settled" until some time 
after the other companies. It has been indicated that 
the regimental organization meant little in practice, the 
company being the important unit. 

But the organization could not be effective without the 
passage by the assembly of the militia act which Cornbury's 

'^New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 6. 

' Libet AAA of Commissions, p. 6. 

'Ibid., p. 37. ^Ibid., pp. 53, 65. ^Ibid., p. 69. 

^ Ibid., pp. 32, 61. 62, 63. '^ Ibid., p. 36. ^Ibid., p. 11. 

^ Ibid., pp. 42. 43. ^'^Ibid., p. II. ^^Ibid., p. 16. 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 



563 



instructions ordered him to procure.' And the governor's 
quarrel with the first assembly efifectually prevented such 
legislation while it was in existence. When, however, 
Cornbury and his allies by the unjustifiable means already 
described, secured a temporary control of the second 
assembly, a militia act was carried through as one of the 
features of the governor's policy." 

This act ordered that no persons between the ages of 
16 and 60 should remain unenlisted " by themselves, par- 
ents or masters" "the space of one calendar month." 
The penalty for neglect was los and so for every month. 
Every foot soldier was to provide himself with a well- 
fixed musket or fusee, or if the officer appointed, with a 
good pike or sword or lance and pistol. Every mus- 
keteer was to have half a pound of powder and twelve 
sizeable bullets and a cartridge box or powder horn. 
Each person was to appear thus equipped when required 
under penalty of 5s for not appearing and 3s for want of 
each article, but the whole fine for lack was not to 
exceed 5s. 

Every horse soldier was to have a good horse of his 
own with a good saddle, and holsters, breast plate, crup- 
per and a case of good pistols, hanger, sword, or rapier 
and one-half pound of powder with twelve sizeable 
bullets. The penalty was 10s for each absence from 
training, and los for the lack of each article, the entire 
fine not to exceed 15s. 

Each soldier was to have an additional supply of 
powder and bullets at his house, and each cavalryman 
was to keep a well-fixed carbine with belt and swivel. 
There was to be an additional fine of los for each de- 

^ Assembly Journal, Sept. 7, 1704. 
'Laws Enactedin 1704 (Bradford print). 



^64 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

fault in this respect, and persons not bringing the said 
articles into the field when required, were to answer by 
court martial. 

When the troops of horse fell below fifty in number, 
the colonel was to name from the principal inhabitants 
treble the number of the vacancies and from such list 
the governor was to name those to serve.' For refusal 
to serve there was a fine of £5. No soldier was to 
depart without a discharge from the commander of his 
troop or company on penalty of 40s., but no officer was 
to refuse a discharge to any one removing from the pre- 
cinct or province on " paine " of £5. 

All commanding officers were within twelve months to 
provide for their forces, drums and colors, trumpets and 
banners at the proper charge of the companies. Once a 
year all the colonels were to issue warrants to their in- 
ferior officers for a diligent search as to whether all their 
men were duly armed and equipped, and all defects were 
to be returned to the end that they might be redressed. 
The penalty for neglect by the officers was £12, 

Once every three months the several companies in 
each regiment were to meet at the most convenient 
place for muster and exercise. The command for this 
was to be given by the Captain-General, and if occasion 
required he might order more frequent musters. While 
in arms the soldiers were to give due obedience to their 
officers, and to observe such rules and articles of war as 
should be established by the Captain-General with the 
advice of a general council of war. Copies of these arti- 
cles were to be given by the colonels to their officers, that 
they might be read every three months to the soldiers. 
If any soldier should afterward take revenge for anything 

' There are no indications that the troops of horse were ever organized. 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 565 

done by an officer when under arms, he was to be tried 
by court martial and punished as if the offense had been 
committed under arms ; but punishment was not to 
extend to life or limb. Officers who neglected to per- 
form the commands of their superiors were to be tried 
by court martial and punished by cashiering or other- 
wise. 

Any person wounded in the public service was to be 
cured at the public expense; and anyone sued or molested 
for anything done under the militia act itself might plead 
it and recover triple costs. 

The provisions relating to the collection of fines had 
special importance. All fines from those below the rank 
of captain were to go to pay the charges of the several com- 
panies. They were to be levied before the next exercis- 
ing day, if necessary, by distress and sale of the offender's 
goods upon the captain's warrant addressed to the ser- 
geant or corporal. If no distress was found, there was 
to be punishment by riding the wooden horse, or being 
tied neck and heels not exceeding an hour. If the 
offender was a servant, the master's goods were to be 
liable, and any sergeant or corporal refusing to levy 
distress was to forfeit 40s. If said fines were not suffi- 
cient to pay the charges of a company, what was wanting 
was to be paid by the soldiers on warrant from the 
colonel. 

The fines of captains and higher officers were to be 
levied on warrant from the captain-general, or the chief 
field officers where the offenders were. One-half was 
to go to the captain-general and one-half to the com- 
mander of the regiment. 

The rest of the act related to a system of alarms. It 
was forbidden to fire any arms after 8 o'clock at night 
unless in case of alarm or some lawful occasion, such as 



-66 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

shooting deer, turkeys or wolves. Four muskets dis- 
tinctly fired or two muskets and beating a drum were to 
constitute an alarm. Any person neglecting to forward 
an alarm or guilty of firing after 8 o'clock, was to be 
punished by court martial, though as usual, such punish- 
ment was not to extend to life or limb. Every man who 
did not, upon alarm, repair armed to his colors, was to 
be fined £5. £4 was to be the penalty for masters of 
ships at anchor in the province for every gun-fire or 
drum-beat after 8 o'clock. 

The militia act of 1704 provided for a system probably 
as strict as existed anywhere in the northern colonies. 
The fines were, comparatively speaking, heavy; a court 
martial was provided for ; and the officers of the com- 
panies were, of course, to be appointed by the governor, 
not elected as in New England. If it had been enforced 
New Jersey must have had a fairly effective defense. 

But, unfortunately, beneath the strict provisions of 
the act lay the desire on the part of Cornbury and his 
advisers to injure the Quaker interest in West Jersey. 
The fines for refusing to enroll, for refusal to attend 
musters, etc., were so heavy as to lay a real hardship 
upon the Friends. But the most unjustifiable feature 
was the lack of any provision by which, when the goods 
of a person had been seized by distress, and sold to cover 
the penalties, the "overplus" should be returned to the 
ov/ner. Through the omission of such a clause Corn- 
bury's officers were permitted to rob the Quakers with 
impunity. 

So manifestly unsuited was such a drastic act to the 
circumstances of the colony that it, together with all but 
one of the other acts passed by the second assembly, was 
disallowed by the crown.' During the period in which 

' The disallowance was, however, upon the ground that the sums of 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 567 

it was in operation it certainly failed to give New Jersey 
an efficient militia. On the other hand, it gave rise to 
the bitterest complaints and objections from those who 
felt its severity and indeed was one of the most import- 
ant grievances against Cornbury's government. So 
bitter was the feeling in West Jersey that the provisions 
of the law could not be carried out. Eight of the con- 
stables of Burlington County refused to levy distresses 
upon Quakers who would not serve in the militia, and 
were prosecuted by the attorney-general upon an informa- 
tion, but without being convicted.' When distresses 
were levied, no one would buy the articles seized. Lewis 
Morris declared that there was a certain house in Bur- 
lington filled with all sorts of property belonging to the 
Quakers. He said also that the seizures amounted to 
£1,000 a year, about ten times the real value of the fines.* 
In Salem, where William Dare, one of Cornbury's hench- 
men, was both sheriff and captain, there were similar 
abuses.' When Cornbury recommended at his last meet- 
ing with the assembly that the militia law be re-enacted, 
the house refused point blank to do so, though at the 
same time it expressed its willingness to provide for the 
defense of the province by any reasonable means.* 

Thus, owing to the foolishness and selfishness of the 

money levied by the act were to be paid into the hands of such persons 
as the governor should appoint and were to be applied for such uses as 
the governor should direct, instead of being paid to the receiver gen- 
eral only for purposes specified in the act itself. The arrangement to 
which the Lords objected was highly characteristic of Cornbury's ad- 
ministration. New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 324. 

^Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), p. 57. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 280. See also Ibid., vol. iii, p. 365; 
vol. iv, p. 44. 

^ Assembly Journal, Jan. 4, 1710-11. 

* Ibid., May 11, 12, 1708. 



:568 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

governor, New Jersey was left without any militia legis- 
lation. Under such circumstances it need hardly be said 
that Cornbury also failed completely in securing the 
£250 fixed by the home authorities as New Jersey's con- 
tribution for the fortification of New York.' Even the 
subservient second assembly never seriously considered 
granting this. New Jersey herself had no fortifications, 
and the governor took no steps toward erecting any. 
Cornbury did indeed grant commissions to at least four 
privateers against the French. They were the sloop 
"Resolution" of 25 tons and 40 men: the brigantine 
"Good Intent" of 75 tons and 9 guns; the brigantine 
"Abraham and Sarah" of 95 tons and 12 guns, and the 
sloop " Diamond " of 80 tons and 4 guns."* But surely no 
part of his excellency's administration was a more abject 
failure than this very field of work in which, owing to 
his previous experience, it might have been hoped that 
he would be especially successful. 

Lord Lovelace, on the contrary, readily secured the 
passage of a militia act' to run for three years, which 
was renewed by Hunter's first assembly of 171 1.'' The 
text of this law has apparently not been preserved, but 
it is clear that it did not contain the objectionable 
features of the act of 1704. It seems, therefore, prob- 
able that the penalties for refusal to serve in the militia 
or for negligence were so relaxed that hardship was im- 
posed on no one. But, however necessary it may have 
been to preserve the religious liberty of the Quakers, 
a home defense organized in their interest could not 
have been very efficient. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 541. 
^ Liber AAA of Commissions, pp. 32, 33, 53. 
^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiii, p. 328. 
*Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 541; vol. iv, p. 65. 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 569 

Under Ingoldsby and in the early years of Hunter's 
rule, the province was forced to give much thought to 
military affairs. This activity was, however, in regard 
to New Jersey's share in the two futile expeditions 
against Canada, and did not relate directly to the militia 
system.' It may, therefore, be best discussed separately. 

Hunter handled the question of the militia in much 
the same spirit as the other political problems which he 
was called upon to solve. Among the acts prepared by 
his first assembly was one for the relief of persons in- 
jured by the distresses levied under Cornbury's militia 
law."^ The new governor regarded this measure with 
approval, but it was rejected by the council along with 
most of the other measures of the session. As a part 
of his war upon the old administrative ring, however, 
Hunter retired nearly all of Cornbury's militia officers. 
Johnstone and Farmar became colonels of the East Jer- 
sey regiments,^ while Daniel Coxe in West Jersey was 
superseded by John Hamilton, son of the last proprietary 
governor.* The control of the town companies was also 
taken from the hands of men like Dare and Salter who 
had been so officious under the late regime. ^ 

In 1714 a new act was carried "for Settling the 
Militia."^ By accepting this law. Hunter evidently be- 
lieved that he was securing the best provision for the 
militia which the circumstances of the colony permitted. ^ 
As this act remained the basis of the system for the rest 

' Ingoldsby gave a commission to the privateer ship " Resolution " of 
300 tons and 20 guns. 

"-New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 58. 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, pp. 151, 152. 

*Ibid., p. 153. ^ Ibid., passim. 

^ Laws Enacted in 1713-14 (Bradford print). 

'New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 323. 



r^O THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

of the Union Period we may recite its contents in some 
detail. Every captain was required forthwith to make a 
list of all men in his precinct between 15 and 50. Those 
exempted from the military service were ministers, 
physicians, school-masters, civil officers of the govern- 
ment, the representatives and slaves. Every person " so 
listed " was to be armed with a musket or fusee, well 
fixed, a sword or bayonet, a cartridge box or powder 
horn, a pound of powder, and twenty sizeable bullets. 
They were to appear in the field armed twice every year, 
in March and September, at places appointed by the cap- 
tains. But they were to remain in arms but one day. 
Besides these semi-annual trainings the militia might be 
summoned on other occasions by written order from the 
commander-in-chief. At the musters the men were to 
be taught the use of arms by their officers. If disobe- 
dient, they were to suffer the punishments of martial 
law, not extending to life and limb. 

The act provided the usual system of fines for lack of 
equipment, — for lack of musket 2s.; if not well fixed is.; 
sword IS.; pound of powder is.; one pound of bullets is. 
Said fines were to be levied by the sergeant or corporal 
on warrant from the captain upon the goods of the 
offenders, if they refused to pay. The fines were to go 
for drums and colors. 

Persons failing to appear at the appointed places were 
to pay 5s. to the support of the government for each 
offense in default of reasonable excuse " as sickness," such 
excuse to be allowed by the commanding officer. The 
sums were to be paid to the captain and by him from 
time to time to the treasurer. Upon refusal to pay, 
fines were to be levied by distress, but such distress was 
to be made only once a year for all fines due, and upon 
sale of the goods, the overplus was to be returned. The 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 57 1 

treasurer was to keep account of all sums received in 
this way and was to have £1 of every £100 for his trouble. 
If the fines mentioned before were not sufficient to pro- 
vide any company with drums and colors, the sum 
needed should be allowed by the treasurer out of the 
other fines. 

In case of actual invasion it was to be lawful for the 
captain-general to call as many of the militia as necessary 
to repel the enemy. He might order such as he saw fit 
to pursue the enemy into neighboring governments. 

It was to be lawful for such captains as lived on the 
seaside or near the Indians to call together such men as 
necessary in case of descent or invasion. If during time 
of war or danger the governor should direct that a 
watch be kept, the commanders of the regiments were 
to issue orders to the captains to appoint men to serve 
at the fires and at the places set. But the watch was to 
be relieved so that all should serve alike. Any person 
refusing to watch was to forfeit 5s., but anyone leaving 
the watch 40s. 

Anyone appointed by the captain as sergeant or cor- 
poral who refused to serve forfeited 20s. None, how- 
ever, were to be appointed save such as appeared in arms. 

The act was to continue for seven years and no 
longer. 

The simple provisions of this act contrast in a rather 
striking way with the clauses of Cornbury's law of 1704. 
Aside from the omission of all mention of troops of 
horse, the spirit of the acts was quite diflferent. The 
new law made the lines for non-compliance exceed- 
ingly small, and did away with the courts martial. It 
provided also in a skilful way an easy escape for the 
Friends. It was made to rest entirely with the captains of 
the companies v»-hether the Quakers should be fined at all. 



^^^2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

The fact that this mihtia law gave such excellent satis- 
faction seems to show that it bore heavily on none, and 
that the militia was therefore not highly efficient. In- 
deed, with only two trainings a year, no high degree of 
military skill could possibly have been developed. It is 
certainly very noticeable that Hunter, himself a trained 
soldier, rarely speaks of the military affairs of the Jerseys 
in his correspondence with the home authorities. This 
fact may be partly explained by the termination of Queen 
Anne's War. Colonel Coxe and his adherents, however, 
endeavored to make much out of what they called 
Hunter's neglect to keep the militia under proper order 
and discipline.' But he, in reply, declared that the militia 
had been in very good order ever since Coxe and his 
assistants were turned out of it.' The governor was 
evidently satisfied with the best arrangements which 
would work smoothly, and with his usual common 
sense, was not willing to make demands upon the col- 
onists to which he knew they would not quietly submit. 
Near the end of his administration, Hunter estimated 
the effective strength of the militia at 3000.^ There 
were now three separate regiments in East Jersey, while 
West Jersey had two, one for Burlington and Gloucester, 
and a new one under Isaac Sharp as colonel for Salem 
and Cape May.'' 

Governor Burnet, on the other hand, as a part of his 
general policy of activity against French aggression 
from Canada, showed himself especially desirous of 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 309. 

''Ibid., vol. iv, p. 323. The governor held that the militia was not 
safe in their hands as they were in sympathy with the Pretender. 
^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iv, p. 451. 
* Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 158. 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 



573 



rendering the militia more efficient. In April, 1721, 
during his first meeting with the general assembly, 
Burnet communicated to his council his full instructions 
relating to military affairs and to the securing of aid for 
New York.' At the same time he read a letter from 
the Indian commissioners at Albany, complaining of 
French encroachments among the Five Nations.^ Burnet 
desired that proper places for fortifications be considered, 
and that a new bill for the regulation of the militia be 
prepared.^ The governor, in addition, announced his 
purpose of establishing a new regiment in West Jersey 
"that they might have three as well as East Jersey."* 
The council proceeded to consider these matters as a 
committee with Lewis Morris as chairman. But two of 
the councilors, John Wills and John Hugg, refused to 
join in the report since they were Friends. ^ The mem- 
bers remaining were Morris, Anderson, Hamilton and 
Peter Bard. After brief deliberation they reported that, 
in their opinion, the French aggression among the Five 
Nations was a danger to all British subjects, and that all 
the colonies concerned should contribute to the defense 
of the frontier. They, however, regarded the erecting of 
fortifications in the Jerseys as useless. Such work could 
not prevent Indian incursions from the west, and the 
distance of the settlements from the coast, and the diffi- 
culty of landing "so as to come at them," were a suffi- 
cient protection on this side. All that would serve a 
practical purpose was to put the militia into "as good a 
posture of defense" as possible, and this should be done 
with all speed. ^ 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 164-171. 

'''Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 164-172. 

'•''Ibid,, vol. xiv, p. 165. ^ Ibid. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 173. '^Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 174-5. 



C574 '^'^^ PROVINCE OP NEW JERSEY 

The council ordered that a bill be brought in to render 
the militia more serviceable. This bill was duly pre- 
pared, but the assembly, then wrangling with Burnet, 
amended the bill so that it provided merely for the con- 
tinuation of the existing arrangements. As the governor 
and council would not accept such a change, the bill was 
lost.' Even Burnet's well-meant efforts to arouse inter- 
est in the subject by submitting an account from James 
Logan, Secretary of Pennsylvania, of a marauding ex- 
pedition of the Iroquois into Virginia fell flat.' 

At the next session, held in the spring of 1723, how- 
ever, after an understanding had been reached between 
the governor and the representatives, a new militia bill 
was actually passed. Yet this bill, after all, differed 
only in minor details from that of 1714.^ But there 
was an additional clause by which every "listed" man 
was to keep always at his house a "well fixt" musket, 
}4 pound of powder, and 12 sizeable bullets. Captains 
were empowered to order their sergeants and corporals 
to examine once a year, and those found lacking were to 
pay 3s. This act, like that of Hunter, was to run seven 
years, but was then to continue in force until the end of 
the next session of the assembly. The gaining of the 
law of 1723 was certainly not a very great achievement 
for Burnet after all his efforts. It did, however, settle 
the question of the militia for the rest of his administra- 
tion."* 

Nevertheless the governor did succeed in establishing 
a third regiment in West Jersey. This was for the 

^ JVew Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 198. ^Ibid. 

"^ Laws Enacted in 1722-3 (Bradford print); New Jersey Archives, 
vol. V, p. 54. 

*As Burnet became Americanized, he certainly showed less anxiety 
about carrying out his instructions to the letter. 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 



575 



newly-established county of Hunterdon, which was being 
settled very rapidly. Burnet named as colonel Daniel 
Coxe, who had been such a bitter opponent of Hunter, 
thus showing his desire that the old feuds be given up.' 

In 1730, under Montgomerie, the militia act was re- 
newed for another period of seven years.' The measure 
seems to have been passed as a matter of course and to 
have caused little discussion. It was almost exactly like 
the law of 1723, but it is significant that the fine for 
absence from training was reduced from 5s. to 3s. 6d. 

In the efforts to attain a separate government for New 
Jersey, which began about this period, one of the argu- 
ments advanced was that the entire inefficiency of the 
militia was due to the connection with New York. 
Lewis Morris, when advocating separation to the home 
government, declared that the militia was in a bad con- 
dition. ^ The penalties imposed by the acts were so 
small that people preferred to pay them rather than 
appear in arms. Scarcely a man could be found willing 
to take a commission. The secretary had, indeed, in- 
formed Morris that there were several bundles of com- 
missions lying in the office which had been made out by 
Montgomerie, but which the persons named would not 
take out. There seems no reason to doubt that while 
Morris' statement may have been somewhat exaggerated, 
it was essentially true. There was also truth in the later 
statement of Mr. Partridge, the agent of the colony, that 
many of the militia officers lived outside the province. ■♦ 

It seems clear, then, that at the end of the union 
period, New Jersey had attained something more than 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 187. Trent was the first colonel. 

^Bradford, Statutes of Isiew Jersey. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. v, p. 319. ^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 336. 



576 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the usual colonial standard of ineffectiveness in her mili- 
tia system. 

Aside from maintaining her militia in this half-hearted 
way, New Jersey had taken little part in the military 
affairs of the colonies as a whole. In both of the fruitless 
land expeditions against Canada, undertaken toward the 
close of Queen Anne's war, New Jersey participated by 
sending the quotas required of her. The quota fixed by 
the Crown as her contribution to the Nicholson-Vetch 
expedition of 1709-10 was 200 men.' When the general 
assembly of the province was called by Ingoldsby to 
make the necessary provisions, the members, though 
professing their willingness to obey the queen's orders, 
displayed great lack of enthusiasm. Reasons were 
at once presented why New Jersey's quota should 
be reduced, but Nicholson and Vetch replied that they 
had no power to admit reductions.^ The question was 
then considered whether New Jersey would send a de- 
tachment of her militia, but it was voted that the expe- 
dition should be supported only by voluntary enlist- 
ments.-^ It was, however, decided to raise £3000 by the 
issue of bills of credit to pay the expenses of the expe- 
dition. But when the council, in its usual excess of zeal, 
sent down a bill to prevent persons from leaving the 
province to escape service it was flatly rejected.'' 

The question of the expedition, as was the case with 
nearly all military matters in the Jerseys, soon came to 
be entangled with the subject of Quakerism. The trans- 
parent and awkward, yet withal dangerous, efforts of 

^ New Jetsey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 336. 
^Assembly Journal, May 30, 1709. 

'^Ibid., May 31, 1709. Upon the question being first put the vote 
stood even. 

* Ibid., June 3, 1709. 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 577 

Ingoldsby and his supporters to compel the Friends to 
shoulder the blame for defeating the expedition are fully- 
discussed elsewhere. Suf^ce it to repeat here that the 
measures for furnishing the quotas were eventually 
passed though only after considerable delay. 

The two companies of " fusilleres " which composed 
New Jersey's quota seem to have been readily filled by 
voluntary enlistment, and under Captains John Harrison 
and Jacob Spicer ' took part in the futile march to Wood 
Creek. But the failure of the expedition involved the 
colony in debt and discouragement. 

The fifth assembly proceeded in true modern style to 
hold an investigation into the conduct of those connected 
with the expedition. This was carried on by a committee 
of the council acting with the assembly in committee of 
the whole,* but it is evident that a majority of the mem- 
bers were actuated by political motives. Several of the 
men prominent in the managing of the expedition were 
members of the proprietary party. After the investiga- 
tion, the committee of the council, therefore, presented 
and entered upon the council journal a report, and the 
council passed a set of resolutions. ^ These declared that 
the commissioners named to sign the bills of credit had 
acted illegally and were guilty of the gravest misconduct. 
Farmar and Parker who were commissioners for manag- 
ing the expedition were accused of betraying their trust 
as was also John Harrison, the commissary. But in the 
expression of these opinions the house, naturally, did 
not join. When the house sent up a bill for punishing 
deserters during the expedition, the council amended it 

^ Liber AAA of Commissions, pp. 103, 104. 

^ Assembly Journal, Dec. 21, 22, 1709. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 416-18. 



c^^g 'THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

SO as to compel Farmar, Parker, Hude and Harrison 
"to refund such moneys as they had cheated the pro- 
vince of."' The bill was of course lost by the refusal of 
the representatives to accept the amendment. Out of 
this unfortunate difference no result came except an 
increase of the already bitter factional feeling. 

In July, 171 1, under Hunter, New Jersey was again 
called upon by the Crown to take part in an attack upon 
Canada. 'Hunter, in his speech to the assembly, called 
upon the assembly to levy 180 men for each division and 
to provide for their support.^ He also submitted his in- 
structions on the subject, stated that the royal fleet and 
forces had arrived and asked despatch. The assembly 
which was in complete accord with the governor used 
all speed in preparing a measure for the raising of the 
equivalent of 12,500 ounces of plate in bills of credit.^ 
As before, however, the quotas were to be filled entirely 
by volunteers. The house, nevertheless, acted loyally 
and drew up a patriotic address to the Queen. In 
promptness it indeed left little to be desired. 

Although the Walker expedition was even more dis- 
astrous in its results than that of Nicholson and Vetch, 
it led to no such scandals and quarrels in New Jersey. 
Although the usual care was taken by the assembly in 
auditing all the accounts connected with it,* no more 
special investigation was deemed necessary. This result 
was due in part no doubt to the ousting of Cornbury's 
ring from the council. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiii, p. 420. 
^Tbid., vol. xiii, p. 477- 
^Assembly Journal, July 10, 171 1 et seq. 

^ Ibid., Feb. 6, 1713-14. The committee which examined into the 
accounts reported everything regular and vouched for. 



THE MILITIA SYSTEM 



579 



The conclusion of peace with France seems to have 
been received in New Jersey with a feehng of rehef. 
Thereafter the people of the Jerseys troubled themselves 
little about possible dangers from Canada or the sea. 
The general opinion in the colony seems to have agreed 
with that of the disrespectful John Case against whom 
complaint was made before the council on July 4, 1721, 
by David Lyell.' The said Case had been guilty of 
" slanderous speeches against the government." He had 
declared that the country would not be frightened by 
Burnet's tales of Canada Indians, but that he himself 
would fight all that came to attack New Jersey. It 
should be said, however, that, though the valiant Case 
had no fear of Indians, he fled from home ingloriously 
on the approach of the sheriff and could not be found. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiv, p. 201. 



CHAPTER XXVI 
The Church of England in the Jerseys 

While both East and West Jersey remained without 
established churches, the story of the efforts made to in- 
troduce and spread Anglicanism in the colony has espe- 
cial interest to the student of political history because of 
their influence upon the party struggles in the province. 
Curiously enough Cornbury and his clique, Coxe, Son- 
mans, Hunter, Burnet, Morris, Colonel John Hamilton 
and the most notable leaders of the Perth Amboy pro- 
prietors, Gordon, Johnstone and Willocks, were all 
Anglicans. Yet even so, their political struggles were 
not devoid of a religious coloring. The other religious 
elements which were factors in the field of politics were 
the Presbyterianism so staunchly held by the New Eng- 
land settlers of East Jersey and the Quakerism of many 
of the leading proprietors and inhabitants of West Jersey. 
The political influence of the Dutch Reformed Church 
and of the Baptist congregations of Piscataway, Somer- 
set, Monmouth and Cape May does not seem to have 
been marked. 

The appearance of Episcopacy as an important politi- 
cal force in the Jerseys is to be connected on the one 
hand with the beginning of the work of the " Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts," 
and on the other with the career of the famous George 
Keith. Previous to the establishment of the royal gov- 
ernment there had indeed been certain beginnings of 
580 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND cjgl 

Anglicanism in the province. We know that Governor 
Philip Carteret of East Jersey was an adherent of the 
Church of England, and are told that he frequently 
attended church at New York.' It is highly probable 
that there were churchmen among those who followed 
him into the province, but they were entirely lost in the 
flood of Presbyterianism which came into East Jersey 
from Long Island and Connecticut. When, however, 
Perth Amboy was founded as a center of strictly pro- 
prietary influence the position of Episcopacy became 
better. About 1695 several of the East Jersey pro- 
prietors applied to Bishop Compton of London for an 
Anglican clergyman, and in consequence the Rev. Ed- 
ward Perthuck was sent to the province in [698.' To 
enable him to conduct his work the proprietors arranged 
that one of the houses which had been built at their 
general charge should be given as a church. It appears, 
however, that Perthuck did not remain in personal 
charge of the congregation, and Lewis Morris, writing 
in 1700, estimated that all the churchmen in the province 
if gathered together would make up about twelve com- 
municants. 

But meanwhile George Keith had appeared in the 
province. This remarkable person was a native of 
Aberdeen, Scotland, and though originally a Presbyte- 
rian, was already known as a man of some prominence 
among the Quakers. He is known to have been for 
some time a schoolmaster, but becoming acquainted 
with Robert Barclay and others interested in East Jersey 

' Dankers and Slyter, Journal of a Voyage to New York (Brooklyn, 
1867), p. 346. 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, p. 
20Q. 



5g2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

he was, in 1684, named surveyor-general of that province. 
This position he filled with considerable ability, his 
administration being remembered for his effort to run 
the line of division between East and West Jersey. But 
in 1689 he removed to Pennsylvania to assume charge of 
a school in Philadelphia. This place he apparently did 
not hold long. He was by this time well known both as 
a speaker and a writer among the Quakers, and he now 
seems to have devoted himself entirely to these lines of 
activity. There is no doubt that he was gifted as a 
preacher and was, indeed, a man of superior intellectual 
capability. 

But Keith was a natural leader, and soon gathered a 
party about himself, thus occasioning the first serious 
division which the Society of Friends had known. The 
chief object of Keith and his followers, the " Keithian 
Quakers," was to secure a stricter discipline among the 
Friends, whom they regarded as having fallen away from 
the primitive simplicity preached by Fox. But though 
he won many supporters, the majority sentiment among 
the Friends was against him, and after a violent contro- 
versy he was practically expelled from the society.' 
Under these circumstances Keith renounced the teach- 
ings of Quakerism and went over to the Established 
Church of England, in which he took orders. Still 
impelled by his fiery zeal, he, in 1702, returned to 
America as a missionary for the newly organized Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel, the pioneer of a great 
effort to win America back to the historic church. He 

' Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Aniboy, pp. 
16-20; Proud, History of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1797), vol. i, pp. 
363-376; Gough, History of the People Called Quakers (Dublin, 1789), 
vol. ii, pp. 317-350; Sewel, History of the Quakers (New York. 1844), 
vol. ii, pp. 345, 404. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 583 

was accompanied by the Rev. John Talbot, a man des- 
tined for a most striking career.' 

These bold missionaries preached and held service at 
numerous points in the Jerseys notably at Amboy, 
Elizabethtown, Shrewsbury, Woodbridge and Burling- 
ton, and they met with striking success especially 
among the " Keithian " Quakers, a considerable number 
of whom followed their leader into the Anglican com- 
munion. Among these converts were John Barclay, 
brother of the great Quaker apologist. Miles Forster' 
and John Reid the surveyor general. ^ The mission was 
supported and encouraged by Lord Cornbury, who 
paraded great zeal for the church. 

The greatest single achievement of Keith and Talbot 
was at Burlington, where a considerable congregation 
was soon gathered, by which land was purchased and a 
church erected in 1703.* This church, the famous St. 
Mary's, became a veritable bulwark of Anglicanism in 
West Jersey. Lord Cornbury and many of those about 
him were present at the first sermon preached in it by 
Talbot. 5 Its first wardens were Nathaniel Westland and 
Robert Wheeler, while among other well-known persons 
connected with its earliest years were John Jewell, Wil- 
liam Budd, Abraham Hewling and Hugh Huddy.^ Budd 
was a notable convert from Quakerism. ^ Of St. Mary's 
parish Talbot became the first rector.^ Shortly after the 

'Whitehead, op. cit., pp. 20-21; Hills, Hist, of the Chtirch in Bur- 
lington, p. 21. 

* Whitehead, op. cit., p. 211 (note 5). 'Ibid., p. 212 (note 6). 

* Hills, op. cit., pp. 22, 30, 31, Z2, 35. 

^ Ibid., pp. 39, 40. ^Ibid., pp. 45, 53. 

' Budd is known as the author of the curious pamphlet, Good Order 
Established in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (1685). In this he ad- 
vocated compulsory education for all children in the colonies. 

''John Sharpe was for a short time his associate and gathered a con- 
gregation at Cheesquaks. 



rg^ THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

establishment of the church, however, he returned to 
England on business connected with his mission and was 
succeeded at St. Mary's by the Rev. Thorowgood Moore 
who had been a missionary at Albany and among the 
Indians.' 

Through the efforts of Keith and Talbot another con- 
gregation was formed at Hopewell. But this parish had 
as yet no clergyman of its own. 

In East Jersey the results of the mission were even 
greater. The interest aroused at Amboy by Keith and 
Talbot brought about the refitting of the old church.^" 
At Elizabethtown a permanent foothold was gained by 
Anglicanism, and in 1706 St. John's Church was erected 
there.3 Such progress was made that in 1704 Rev. John 
Brooke was sent by the Society as missionary to Eliza- 
bethtown, and by Cornbury's orders he officiated some- 
times at Amboy."* Among the notable men connected 
with St. Peter's at Amboy were Gordon, Barclay, Wil- 
locks, Johnstone, and Sonmans.^ But the most active 
lay churchmen at Elizabethtown was Colonel Richard 
Townley of Cornbury's council. 

Brooke worked courageously amidst the many dis- 
couragements of a missionary. He held service at seven 
different places, covering ground fifty miles in extent. 
Besides Elizabethtown and Amboy, he visited regularly 
Rahway, Cheesquaks, Piscataway, Rocky Hill, and even 
Freehold.^ Of Moore and Brooke Mr. Talbot says 
" the most pious and industrious missionaries that ever 

'Hills, op. cit., p. 64. 

'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 211. 
"Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 290, 298. 
* Whitehead, op. cit., p. 212. ^ Ibid., passim. 

"Hills, History of the Church in Burlington, p. 83. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 585 

the honorable society sent over."' Mention should also 
be made of the work of Rev. Alexander Inness, who had 
officiated in the Jerseys apparently even before the com- 
ing of Keith and Talbot. He seems to have remained 
as missionary in Monmouth, where the church was much 
aided by the influence of Lewis Morris.' 

The Anglican invasion of the Jerseys was, however, 
not accomplished without stirring up much feeling. 
Here, as elsewhere, the Friends opposed with great 
earnestness the efforts of Keith to proselyte. Such in- 
fluence as the governor had was of course thrown in 
favor of the Anglicans, and Cornbury and his council 
from the beginning made every effort to have Quakers 
excluded from all official posts. ^ The real, though con- 
cealed, persecution directed against the Friends under 
the militia act of 1704 has been elsewhere described.'* 
The advantage to be gained by the creatures surround- 
ing Cornbury, though posing as the especial adherents 
of the Church of England, was too manifest to be neg- 
lected by such unscrupulous politicians. 

But the alliance between the governor's clique and the 
church was not unbroken. The Anglicans in the pro- 
prietary party of course refused to cooperate with Corn- 
bury in his attacks upon the Friends, while the fiery 
Morris did not hesitate to write to Secretary Popple 
that Cornbury himself by his scandalous life and unjust 
administration was the greatest obstacle to the success 
of the church. s Neither Moore nor Brooke approved of 
Cornbury's actions, and the former publicly denounced 

'Hills, op. cit., p. 83. -Ellis, History of Monmouth County. 

'■'New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 3, 66, 82, etc. 

^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 280. 

''Hills, History of the Church in Burlington, p. 80. 



c86 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the conduct of the governor and held that he should be 
excommunicated. He also refused on one occasion to 
administer the sacrament to Ingoldsby.' Moore was, 
therefore, summoned to New York to answer, but he 
refused to obey on the ground that Cornbury, when in 
New York, had no power over New Jersey.^ Ingoldsby, 
then resident at Burlington, thereupon suspended him 
from preaching, but Moore would not recognize his 
authority.' Cornbury ordered the sheriff of Burlington 
to arrest Moore and bring him to Amboy and, when 
after an interview, Moore would not humble himself, he 
caused him to be removed forcibly to New York and 
imprisoned in the fort.^ Here he remained about three 
weeks, but when Cornbury left the city for Albany, 
Moore took advantage of the lax discipline to escape.^ 
He was now joined by Brooke, who was also not well 
regarded by Cornbury because of his known agreement 
with Moore. Together Moore and Brooke reached 
Boston and sailed for England. But the incident was 
ended by the loss of the vessel with all on board. 

Mr. Talbot had meanwhile returned and resumed 
charge at Burlington. Brooke was replaced at Eliza- 
bethtown in 1709 by the Rev. Edward Vaughan, a cler- 
gyman of ability and high character, who thus began a 
career of long service.^ At first his district included the 
same territory as under Brooke, but in 171 1 Rev. Thomas 
Halliday was sent by the Society to take charge of Am- 

' Hills, op. cil., p. 79. 

"•New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 270; Hills, op. cit., p. 67. 
^Ibid., p. 68. ^'Ibid., pp. 66-74. 

^Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, p- 
255; Hills, op. cit., p. 76. 

"HatfielcJ. History of Elizabeth, p. 365. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 587 

boy and Piscataway.' These, with Mr. Inness of Mon- 
mouth, made up the Episcopal clergy of the colony. 

From the time when the Anglican Church began to 
gather strength under the energetic efforts of Keith and 
Talbot, the leaders of the movement saw the desirability 
of obtaining a bishop. But this proved a matter of the 
gravest difficulty. Mr. Talbot was especially energetic 
in the project, and in 1705 a meeting of the clergy of 
New York, the Jerseys and Pennsylvania had been held 
in Burlington, which addressed the Society for the Propa- 
gation of the Gospel upon the necessity of the presence 
of "a Suffragan Bishop."^ They also prepared a petition 
to the queen, which they sent to the Bishop of London, 
requesting that he determine whether it was convenient 
to present it.^ One of the chief objects of Mr. Talbot's 
return to England seems to have been to make direct 
representation to the Society of the need of a bishop, 
though he also sought all further assistance for the mis- 
sion work obtainable.* 

As a result the Society itself, after due consideration, 
submitted to the queen in 1709 a memorial expressing 
the need of the American church for a bishop. At 
almost the same time the Society, regarding Burlington 
as a central point highly suitable for the residence of a 
bishop, purchased, through Governor Hunter, a large 
house at Burlington for that purpose. In so doing they 
acted upon the recommendation of Talbot.^ The house 
itself was the "palace" of John Tatham, so often men- 
tioned with admiration by contemporary authors.^ The 
price paid was £600 sterling. But though the residence 

"Whitehead, op. cit., p. 46. 'Hills, op. cit., p. 61. 

'^ Ibid., p. 63. *Ibid., p. 65. "Ibid., pp. 90, 100, 106, 107. 

* Gabriel Thomas, An Historical Description of the Province aiid 
Country of West New Jersey (London, 1698). p. 17. 



rgg THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

was procured, a bishop was not sent, in spite of further 
petitions and remonstrances from the American churches.' 
In 1713 the Society presented another memorial to the 
queen, which was so favorably received that immediate 
success seemed assured. But the death of Anne once 
more defeated the project for the time being. 

Meanwhile, in spite of the devotion of Talbot, evil 
days had fallen upon St. Mary's. This result was due 
to the unfortunate prominence in the affairs of the 
church assumed by certain members of that political 
ring- which had surrounded Lord Cornburv, and which 
had gained a new lease of life under Ingoldsby. Promi- 
nent among the congregation in 1709 were Ingoldsby 
himself, Colonel Coxe, Hugh Huddy, Jeremiah Basse, 
Alexander Griffith, Thomas Revell, and Daniel Leeds. 
The political influence of this clique undoubtedly brought 
some benefits, notably a charter of incorporation from 
Queen Anne.' It must be admitted, also, that in spite 
of his bad public record, Basse at least was a faithful 
and efficient churchman. But the church was never- 
theless drawn, in spite of itself, into the current of 
politics, and Talbot, with all his zeal, was unable or un- 
willing to resist the steps taken by his influential parish- 
ioners. 

When Hunter assumed the administration, a clash fol- 
lowed, for although his excellency was himself a sincere 
churchman, he was a thorough Whig, a low churchman, 
and not a believer in measures of coercion for dissenters. 
As we have already seen, he soon identified himself with 
the proprietary party, to which the Quaker element in 
West Jersey belonged, and thus came into violent oppo- 
sition to the clique in the council led by Coxe, Pin- 
horne and Sonmans, who posed as high-churchmen. 

'Hills, op. cit., pp. 109, 154, 160. ^IHd., p. 97. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 



;89 



In February, 1711-12, Hunter wrote to the Secretary 
of State that a violent contention had resulted at St. 
Mary's because Mr. Jacob Henderson, who was conduct- 
ing services during a short absence of Mr. Talbot, had 
omitted in the litany the prayer for victory over His 
Majesty's enemies, and the prayer appointed to be said 
in time of war. To this the congregation objected, but 
Mr. Henderson would only say that he did so in accord- 
ance with the custom of Mr. Talbot. The " chiefe " of 
the congregation, however, replied that, being acquainted 
with Talbot's exemplary life, they were willing to bear 
with his scruples, but he could pretend none, having 
formerly never omitted the prayers.' To prevent further 
trouble, Hunter, through Colonel Ouary, induced Talbot 
to return. 

But increased difficulties soon came. The wise and 
statesman-like policy of Hunter, in causing the removal 
from the council of Pinhorne, Sonmans, Coxe, Huddy 
and Hall and replacing them by persons in the proprie- 
tary interests, was regarded by the high churchmen as 
being a direct attack upon Anglicanism. In 1712 the 
violent Henderson, now missionary to Dover Hundred 
in Pennsylvania, drew up a " Representation of the State 
of the Church of England in New York and New Jersey" 
which was evidently intended as a protest to the Lords 
of Trade. '' Henderson declared that in New Jersey no 
laws were made in favor of the church by reason of the 
fact that the majority of the assembly was composed of 
Quakers and other dissenters. There were but four 
ministers of the Church of England in the province. 
But no harm had been done, because the majority of the 

^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, p. 315. 
''New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 155. 



590 ^^^HE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

council were churchmen. Now, however, Hunter had 
joined with Morris to remove from the council worthy 
gentlemen who had supported the church. Morris was 
indeed, though a professed Christian, a person of no 
principles, " who calls the service of the Church of Eng- 
land Pageantry." Owing to the encouragement they 
had received, the dissenters had actually taken posses- 
sion of the church at Hopewell, which was built by sub- 
scriptions of Church of England men. Henderson ended 
his remarkable document by describing the characters of 
those who were about to be removed from the council 
and of those recommended. The former were repre- 
sented as zealous churchmen, while the latter were ab- 
surdly vilified. John Anderson was " a Scotch Presby- 
terian who commanded a ship to Darien in the Scottish 
Expedition thither, and on his return in at Amboy, New 
Jersey, and lett his ship rot and plundered her and 
with ye plunder brought land." John Harrison was de- 
clared to have been " brought up with one Kid a pirate." 
Thomas Reading was "a man of no principles and who 
joyns with the Quakers in all their measures." 

Henderson, however, certainly succeeded in causing 
Hunter annoyance. Though his representation was ably 
refuted in a statement probably written by Lewis Morris,' 
the home authorities deemed it wise to consult the 
bishop of London as to the character of the councilors 
recommended by Morris and Hunter.^ To justify the 
governor, a meeting of the clergy of New York and New 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. i6i. 

'New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. i68. The bishop approved Hunter's 
recommendations. Upon receipt of Hunter's letter complaining of 
Henderson, however, the Lords again wrote to the Bishop requesting 
that he see to it that none but persons of proper character and prin- 
ciples be sent as missionaries in the future; Ibid., vol. iv, p. 212. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 



591 



Jersey, including Inness, Vaughan and Halliday, drew up 
a letter to Henderson expressing disapproval of what he 
had done.' On his part, Thomas Gordon, one of those 
attacked by Henderson, wrote to the governor with the 
request that he transmit to the Lords of Trade enclosed 
certificates of character signed by Inness, Vaughan, Mr. 
McKenzie of Staten Island and other clergymen, clear- 
ing both himself and Colonel Anderson from the slanders 
against them."" Hunter's recommendations were eventu- 
ally approved by the Lords of Trade, though only after 
a lengthy delay. 

But the contest was only beginning. Mr. Halliday, of 
Perth Amboy, soon became embroiled on the side of the 
militant churchmen, especially as the partisan of the 
worthy Peter Sommans."* Though his congregation, 
which included the most influential of the Perth Amboy 
proprietors, was bitterly opposed to his conduct, he was 
treated with respect until he selected Sonmans as his 
warden and denounced George Willocks openly from the 
desk for a presumed misappropriation of funds raised for 
the erection of a church. Thus aroused, the congrega- 
tion shut Halliday out of the church, and so his career at 
Amboy ended ingloriously. He continued for some time 
further at Piscataway, but finally removed to New York, 
where he caused more annoyance.^ 

But Hunter's chief difificulty was of course with Talbot, 
who appears to have sympathized more and more with 
the opposition until he became the fiery ally of Colonel 
Coxe. The high-church party, which had struggled so 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iv, p. 173. ^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 176. 

'^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 103. 

* Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 217. 



5C)2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

long against Quakerism, of course bitterly resented tiie 
leniency of the governor toward their enemies, and when 
the assembly under his influence passed the act qualifying 
Quakers to serve on juries their anger blazed up. In 
March, 1714, the wardens and vestry of St. Mary's ad- 
dressed a remonstrance and petition to the Society, ask- 
ing it to make every efifort to secure the disallowance of 
the act.' Soon after an address was sent to the queen 
herself by Talbot with the wardens and vestry.^ This 
represented how the church of the province was dis- 
tressed by "the wiles of Quakerism and Seism," and 
especially by the passage of the act allowing Quakers to 
hold all posts of trust. The queen was besought to pro- 
tect the church by disallowing the act as contrary to the 
laws of England. Communications were also sent to 
General Nicholson, of Virginia, asking for his assistance, 
and in one of these it was skilfully suggested that the 
sending of a bishop was the only sure way of protecting 
and guarding the church.^ So great, indeed, were Mr. 
Talbot's efforts that he fell sick, and in his discourage- 
ment requested the Society for permission to return to 
England. He " had been long enough in those parts to 
see iniquity established by law, and that by some of your 
own members,'' and what good can your missionaries 
do?"5 

This agitation in St. Mary's was undoubtedly closely 
connected with the struggle in the courts over the 
qualifying of Quakers as jurors. It will be remembered 
that Basse, the clerk of the Supreme Court, refused to 

'Hills, History of the Church in Burlington, p. no. 
^Ibid., p. 116. ^Ibid., pp. 119, 121. 

* Hunter was a member of the Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel. 
'^ Hills, op. cit., p. 125. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 



593 



attest Peter Fretwell and other Friends and was in 
consequence removed from his office. 

Hunter was now moved to anger and in 171 5 wrote 
to Secretary Popple, " that noisy fool Coxe has betrayed 
the public service so avowedly that I verily believe he 
had orders from home to do so. Mr. Talbot has incor- 
porated the Jacobites in the Jerseys under the name of a 
church in order to sanctify his sedition and insolence to 
the government."' As a result of this outburst by the 
governor Talbot himself was given a copy of the charge, 
that he might iiave an opportunity to answer.^ Basse 
wrote to the secretary of the Society declaring vigor- 
ously that the charge of Jacobitism was false, while 
Talbot's letter to the Bishop of London stated that he 
had been a "Williamite" from the beginning. ^ Talbot 
also sent a denial to the Society in which he spoke in an 
affecting way of the evils sufifered by Basse and Griffith 
for their devotion to the church. ■♦ A fourth denial was 
prepared by the church wardens and the vestry, in which 
they quoted from the Bible " there are no such things 
done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine 
own heart. "5 

These denials, however, had no effect upon Hunter. 
He was much annoyed by the conduct of the Bishop of 
London in naming Mr. Vesey of Trinity Church, New 
York, as Commissary, and he declared to Secretary 
Popple that Vesey and Talbot had entered into a *'con- 
triveance" with Governor Nicholson to ruin him. He 
reasserted that they were all Jacobites, declaring that 
"Talbot is a profest Jacobite; nay he will not dissemble 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 209. 
'Hills, op. cit., p. 140. ^Ibid. 

^ Ibid., p. 141. '^ Ibid., p. 145. 



-n^ THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

it." ' The governor was convinced that the efforts of 
Coxe to master the province against him owed much 
of their strength to the "furious Zeall" of Talbot. 
Together they " Enfiamed the lower Rank of People to 
that degree that only time and patience or stronger 
measures than at present in my power can allay the 
heat."" 

But zealously as Talbot agitated, he shared in the 
downfall of Col. Coxe which followed his expulsion 
from the seventh assembly. At a meeting of the gov- 
ernor's council, held on May 21, 1716, at Perth Amboy, 
Talbot's case was considered. It was declared that he 
had encouraged a spirit of division in the province, that 
he omitted prayers from the liturgy, especially the prayer 
for victory over the Sovereign's enemy," and that he 
had incited the recent contempts of the courts. It was 
therefore ordered that the sheriff of Burlington ad- 
minister the oath of allegiance to Talbot and that, if he 
refused the said oath, he be suspended from preaching 
and kept in custody until he should enter into recog- 
nizance to be of good behavior.^ 

Whether this decision was enforced does not appear, 
but it is certain that the opposition of Talbot to Hunter 
was silenced. In 1717 a reconciliation between thein 
was accomplished, however, by the efforts of their mutual 
friend George Willocks, himself an avowed Jacobite.'* An 
effort appears to have been made by the governor and 
Willocks to have Talbot reveal " the wicked design of 
Coxe" and his confederates. But Talbot was unwilling 
to play informer or else had nothing to reveal.^ Willocks 

' JVew Jersey Aixhives, vol. iv, pp. 219-20. 

'■Ibid., vol. iv, p. 230. ^ Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 16-18. 

'-Ibid., vol. iv, p. 291. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 290, 298. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 



595 



declared upon oath that Talbot had informed him that at 
the time of Coxe's election his party wished to pull down 
the Quakers' meeting-house and their dwellings, but he 
(Talbot) had dissuaded them. At another time it was 
suggested that all the Quakers' "glass windows" be 
broken. And, lastly, there was said to be an agreement 
among Talbot's followers that, if he were imprisoned, 
tiiey would pull down the jail bit by bit. But Talbot 
had said that he would prevent this riot by leaving the 
province.' 

In spite of the troubles resulting from the interference 
of Talbot in politics, the Church had continued to make 
])rogress in both Jerseys. Upon the expulsion of Mr. 
Halliday, Mr. Vaughan had again assumed charge of the 
entire district originally covered by Mr. Brooke. In 
1711 a congregation at Woodbridge had been formed as 
a result of a split from the Presbyterian church there, 
and this also fell within his charge." Tn 1714 Mr. 
Vaughan removed from Elizabethtown to Amboy for the 
beneht of his health, though he still continued to officiate 
occasionally at the former place. ^ But the congregation 
at Amboy had now grown to need a separate clergyman, 
and when Mr. Vaughan was sent back to Elizabethtown 
by the Society, Rev. William Skinner was named as mis- 
sionary to the East Jersey capital."* Skinner arrived in 
1722. The new clergyman officiated every third Sunday 
at Piscataway and occasionally visited Woodl)ridge in the 
afternoon. In 172b he began officiating regularly once 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 301-3. 

^Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 
p. 389. 

^ Ibid., p. 217. In 1 718 the congregation received a charter from 
Hunter. 

''Ibid., p. 221. 



2^6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

a month for the people of Monmouth,' Christ Church 
at Shrewsbury had prospered under the ministry of 
Inness and the protection of Colonel Morris. In 1708 it 
had been honored by the gift of a communion service 
from Queen Anne herself. But after the death of Inness, 
which occurred probably in 171 3, Monmouth had no 
regular clergyman until 1733, when the Society at length 
sent the Rev. John Forbes.^ 

The continued labors of Vaughan at Elizabethtown 
also added materially to the strength of St. John's 
Church.^ Nor does it appear that St. John's escaped 
entirely from playing a part in politics. It seems to 
have been a center of proprietary influence amidst the 
antagonistic population of Elizabethtown, and Mr.. 
Vaughan himself figured in the celebrated test case of 
Vaughan vs. Woodruff, which brought temporary victory 
to the proprietors against the associates in the Nicolls 
patent. •♦ The influence of Vaughan in favor of Hunter 
in East Jersey thus partially overset that of Talbot against 
him. Both Vaughan and Skinner continued to serve 
until the end of the Union Period. 

In West Jersey the progress was similar, and this 
growth was not confined to St. Mary's. In 1723 Talbot 
was visiting Trenton, Hopewell and Amwell. In 1722 a 
church, known as St. John's, was organized at Salem. ^ 
It is probable indeed that meetings in private houses had 
been held prior to this time, as among the original set- 
tlers there were several Episcopalian families. The Rev. 
Mr. Holbrook was the first rector. Although the peo- 

' Whitehead, op. cit., p. 224. 

'Ellis, History of Monmouth County. 

^Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, pp. 355-362. *^Ibid., p. 308. 

^Shourds, History and Genealogy of Fenwick' s Colony, p. 438. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 



597 



pie were generally poor, they proved willing to contri- 
bute to the erection of a church building and much 
needed assistance was received from the churchmen of 
Philadelphia. During the year 1726-7 Holbrook re- 
ported fourteen communicants.' 

Meanwhile the plan for procuring a bishop had not 
been laid aside, and in June, 171 5, the Society presented 
a memorial to George I. This contained a plan for cre- 
ating four American bishoprics, two for the islands and 
two for the mainland. The seats of the continental 
bishops were to be Burlington and Williamsburg. But 
the government took no action in the matter. In the 
same year Archbishop Tenison bequeathed £1000 to the 
Society toward the settlement of bishops in America. 
Until bishops were established, the income was to go as 
a pension to worthy missionaries, and in 1721 this pen- 
sion was bestowed upon Mr. Talbot in recognition of his 
prolonged efYorts.'' 

In 1720 Talbot made his second visit to England, 
where he remained about two years and a half.^ During 
this visit it seems certain that he received episcopal con- 
secration from the Scotch non-juring bishops, although 
the matter was for a time kept secret.* This fact lends 
great weight to the charges of Jacobitism formerly made 
by Hunter. Be this as it may, Talbot's appeals to the 
legitimate authorities for the establishment of a bishop 
in America ceased after his return. 

Talbot was warmly welcomed by his loyal flock at St. 
Mary's, yet he found that much ground had been lost 
during his absence. The bishop's house on the point, 

' Shourds, op. cit., p. 439. 

-Hills, op. cit., p. 161. 

■•Ibid. 'Ibid., pp. 168, 186. 



c^gS THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

which had so long awaited the coming of "a head," was 
now almost in ruins. But it was soon put once more 
into a sort of repair by the efforts of Colonel Coxe and 
William Trent.' 

But Talbot's long and useful career was about to come 
to an unfortunate close. Burnet had now succeeded 
Hunter as governor of the Jerseys, and the son of the 
great Bishop of Salisbury was, if possible, an even 
stauncher Whig and low churchman than the soldier of 
Blenheim. He was, moreover, especially interested in 
ecclesiastical aflairs. Soon after his return to America, 
Mr. Talbot had to suffer from the violent attacks of one 
Rev. John Urmston. The latter was a clergyman whom, 
apparently for good reasons, Talbot had co-operated 
with divers of the clergy of Pennsylvania in driving out 
of Christ Church, Philadelphia. Urmston now loudly 
denounced the rector of St. Mary's as a Jacobite." At 
any rate, in August, 1724, Governor Burnet wrote to 
the Bishop of London that he had no complaint against 
any of his clergy except Talbot, who never would take 
the oaths to the king and never prayed for him by name 
in the liturgy. The governor further declared that when 
he was in the Jerseys, Talbot avoided him by going to 
Philadelphia. Moreover, he ''has had the folly to con- 
fess to some who have published it that he is a bishop.'"^ 
At about the same time the old ally of Talbot, Jacob 
Henderson, wrote from Maryland to the Bishop of 
London, also declaring that Talbot v^^as in episcopal 
orders, and that there was danger lest he and Dr. Welton, 
another Jacobite clergyman, should poison the minds of 
the people of the province. ■♦ 

'Hills, op. cit., pp. 169, 172. 'Ibid., pp. 177, 187. 

""Ibid., p. 188. 'Ibid., p. 188. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 



599 



As a result, Talbot was discharged from the service of 
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. In July, 
1725, he wrote to the Bishop of London denying the 
charges which he understood had been made that he had 
undertaken to exercise the jurisdiction over his brethren 
the missionaries. "This is very strange to me, for I 
know nothing about it, nor anybody else, in all the 
world." ' Talbot was nevertheless required by Burnet 
to desist from preaching, and the church in Burlington 
was temporarily closed. " The faithful missionary was 
compelled to leave the province. His devoted flock 
naturally did not acquiesce quietly in his removal, nor did 
they lack powerful sympathizers.^ In January, 1726, a 
memorial was sent to the Society by the wardens and 
prominent members of St. Mary's. It was signed also 
by the wardens, vestry, and members of Christ Church, 
Philadelphia, and by the wardens of the church at New 
Bristol. The memorial represented how great Talbot's 
services had been and how the churches were suffering 
for lack of clergy and other support.* 

Talbot, however, was never restored to his position, 
and in November. 1727, died at Burlington. What- 
ever his political mistakes, the Episcopal Church of New 
Jersey owes him a permanent debt of gratitude. 

When the Society removed Talbot, it named in his 
place Mr. Holbrook the missionary at Salem. ^ But so 
cool were the churchmen of St. Mary's toward the new 
comer, that Holbrook determined to remain at Salem. ^ 
Rev. Nathaniel Harwood, who had been sent to Salem 
therefore proceeded to Burlington and assumed charge. 

' Hills, op. cit., p. IQ2. 'Ibid., p. 203. 

^Ibid., p. 207. ^Ibid., p. 209. 

^Ibid.. p. 206. '^Ibid., p. 207. 



6oo THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

But he was evidently not powerful enough to fill the 
place of Talbot, and in 1729 the church wardens wrote 
to Mr. Vesey of New York setting forth that the church 
had dwindled to almost nothing and that they would 
"take it extreme kind" if he would signify to Harwood 
that it "would be his best way to remove with all 
speed." ' An address was also sent to the Society ask- 
ing for the appointment of Rev. Robert Weyman, whose 
work in Philadelphia was well known. ^ 

This request was granted, and Weyman began a suc- 
cessful, though rather quiet, rectorate, quiet at least as 
compared with the stormy times of Talbot. In 1734 
Weyman was, however, so far aroused as to write to the 
secretary of the Society requesting that a letter be sent 
to his congregation asking them to make some provision 
for the support of the clergyman, since he, being a man 
of family, was unable to live merely upon the bounty of 
the Society as Talbot had done. The congregation 
" constantly and duly attend the worship of God, but do 
not care to do anything toward the support and main- 
tainance of the ministry."^ 

Weyman died in 1737 and was succeeded by the Rev. 
Colin Campbell.'' 

About the only matter of importance in connection 
with the history of St. Mary's during this period was the 
project, already suggested by Talbot, of employing the 
long-unused bishop's palace as a college, whereof there 
was much need. After Talbot's death the plan was 
further urged upon the Society by Colonel Coxe, but no 
definite steps in the matter were taken. - 

Among the prominent persons connected with St. 
Mary's toward the end of our period were Peter Bard, 

1 Hills, op. cit., p. 242. '''Ibid., p. 243. 

'^ Ibid., p. 251. ^ Ibid., pp. 253, 254. ^ Ibid., p. 239. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 6oi 

William Trent and John Allen. Its most active bene- 
factors were, however, Col. Coxe and Basse, who thus 
helped to redeem the errors of their past careers. 

In East Jersey the closing years of the Union Period 
were equally uneventful. By the successful efforts of 
Mr. Skinner the number of the communicants at Amboy 
was raised from 20 in 1722 to 53 in 1741.' Among the 
distinguished parishioners were Dr. Johnstone, R. L. 
Hooper, Col. John Hamilton. Fenwick Lyell and Michael 
Kearney. Mr. Vaughan of Elizabethtown was equally 
successful. In 1721 his audience had increased to 200, 
and he had more than 40 communicants. In 1731 he 
wrote that within the last two years he had baptized 556 
children and 64 adults. In 1734 there were 70 communi- 
cants. In 1736 St. Peter's Church of Freehold received 
a separate charter.' And just at the close of the period 
Newark, the most strictly Calvinistic community of the 
province, saw the establishment of an Episcopal congre- 
gation. This was, curiously enough, owing to a split in 
the First Presbyterian Church due to the censuring of 
the influential Col. Josiah Ogden for saving his crop of 
wheat on Sunday. ^ In 1736 the Society for the Propaga- 
tion of the Gospel was maintaining six ministers in New 
Jersey. 

The Anglican Church had thus become a permanent 
institution in the province. But it w^as no longer re- 
garded as an aggressive invader, threatening religious 
liberty and political freedom. That it had already made 
so good a showing among those trained to regard it 
with suspicion and hostility is highly remarkable. 

' Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, pp. 
^24-5. 
-Ellis, History of Monmouth County. 
'Atkinson, History of N^cwar/c (Newark, 1878), pp. 56-8. 



CHAPTER XXVII 

The Proprietorship under Royal Rule 

east jersey 

To understand the history of the East Jersey proprietor- 
ship under royal rule it is necessary to keep constantly in 
mind the fact that it included conflicting elements and in- 
terests. The majority interest was certainly made up of 
those shareholders, chiefly of Scotch origin, who' had re- 
moved to the province and whose center of operations was 
Perth Amboy, in general alliance with a portion of the 
English and Scotch proprietors at home, among whom the 
West Jersey Society was the most active force/ This 
majority interest was not, however, always entirely harmon- 
ious. Among the Perth Amboy group the powerful and 
masterful Dr. Johnstone and George Willocks, intent upon 
various land- jobbing transactions, were not infrequently in 
opposition to other proprietors;""' while Lewis Morris, as 
has so often been indicated, was somewhat inclined to insist 
upon leading. As the American " agent " of the West 
Jersey Society, he did not always promote peace. 

But opposed to the majority shareholders there was 
an influential and bitter faction calling themselves " the 
English proprietors " because of their wish tO' make the 
quarrel between themselves and their rivals appear a conflict 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 313-316. It must not be forgotten 
that the West Jersey Society held a considerable interest in East Jersey. 
*Ibid., vol, V, pp. 57, loi. 
602 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 6o^ 

between Englishmen and Scotchmen. The leader of " the 
English proprietors " was William Dockwra of London, 
whose unscrupulous character had been revealed in the pro- 
ceedings brought against him by George VVillocks.^ In close 
alliance with Dockwra was Peter Sonmans, who claimed to 
have inherited the four and one-fourth proprieties held by 
his father Arent Sonmans,'^ the largest single interest among 
the proprietors. So intent were the " English proprietors " 
upon defeating their enemies that they had shown them- 
selves during the closing years of the proprietary rule will- 
ing to support those elements in the population of the 
province which desired the complete overthrow of the pro- 
prietorship and its system of quit-rents. They had given 
encouragement to Basse and Capt. Andrew Bowne againsi 
Governor Hamilton/ and in that way contributed in no 
small degree to the wreck of the proprietary government. 

The issue between these factions in the East Jersey pro- 
prietorship was closely connected with the somewhat similar 
conflict in West Jersey between the Quaker interest, in alli- 
ance with that of the West Jersey Society, and the in- 
terest of the Coxes and their supporters. The Coxes acted 
throughout as in league with Dockwra and Sonmans.* 

There seems to be no doubt that the majority element in 
East Jersey, represented by Morris, whose journey to Eng- 
land for the purpose of arranging the surrender to the 
Crown has been mentioned, believed that by giving up its 
powers of government on the understanding that its rights 
to the soil should be protected it had won a distinct triumph. 
The difficult task of maintaining order and of enforcing 
the decisions of the courts was henceforth tO' be executed 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 283. 

*Ibid., vol. iii, p. 315. '^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 385, 401. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 62, 82, loi. 



6o4 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



by royal officers, disobedience tO' whom would be treason. 
Under the protection of the Crown the pecuniary interests 
of the proprietors would be safe. 

It was asserted afterwards by Morris and others of his 
interest that the surrender to the Crown was made upon 
certain definite conditions which were embodied in Corn- 
bury's instructions.^ The Lords of Trade, however, de- 
clared with authority that the surrender was absolute and 
not " made upon terms." ^ They admitted, nevertheless, 
that certain articles desired by the proprietors had been put 
intO' the instructions.^ Morris certainly saw the instructions 
in England/ and there seems no reason to doubt that the 
surrender was perfected with the understanding- that the 
articles relating to the proprietorship would be executed.^ 

Lord Cornbury's instructions ordered in the 36th article 
that, to quiet the inhabitants of the province, an act should 
be passed securing the soil to* the proprietors and those who 
had purchased of them.*"' Their quit-rents were to be se- 
cured, as well as all other privileges originally granted by 
James of York except the right of government. All private 
lands properly held were to be confirmed under such condi- 
tions as would tend to their more speedy cultivation. But 
Cornbury was not tO' consent tO' any act taxing unprofitable 
land. The 37th article ordered that none but the propri- 
etors should buy lands of the Indians.' while the 38th set 
forth that Cornbury should permit the surveyors of the 
proprietors to proceed in their duties.^ He was also to 
allow and assist such agents as the proprietors should ap- 
point to collect their quit-rents. But such agents were not 
only to take oaths for the proper performance of their duties 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. yz, 81, 86. 
"^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 117, 124. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 125. 

"^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 2. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 86. 
''Ibid., vol. ii, p. 517. "^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 517. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 605 

and give proper security, but must also take the oaths ap- 
pointed by parhament to be taken instead of the oaths of 
allegiance and supremacy. The governor was likewise com- 
manded to take care that all lands purchased should be 
cultivated. 

These were the only articles of the instructions directly 
relating to the proprietorship, but Morris declared that the 
15th, setting a high property qualification for members of 
the assembly,^ and the 53d, giving Quakers the right to 
hold office, were also concessions to the proprietors.^ The 
article relating to Quakers was, of course, of significance 
chiefly for West Jersey, but the 15th article was of much 
importance for the proprietors of the Eastern division. Its 
execution would mean, in all probability, that the members 
of the assembly would be themselves proprietors, as few 
persons besides these possessed the necessary one thousand 
acres. The requirement of ownership of one hundred acres 
for the suffrage would also exclude from voting many of 
the poorer element in Elizabethtown and elsewhere. Morris 
and his interest really intended that the government should 
be under the control of the proprietors just as before the 
surrender, but with the royal executive to enforce the laws 
which they should make. 

For a brief time after the arrival of Cornbury the new 
arrangement worked as the proprietors had expected. Yet 
the proprietors from the beginning seem to have been aware 
of Cornbury's true character as a certain clique among them, 
represented by Dr. Johnstone, paid him a bribe of one 
hundred pounds of plate, " hoping that he would nicely 
observe his instructions." Later they gave him a second 
hundred pounds.'' Cornbury early exhibited a suspicion 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ii, p. 510; vol. iii, pp. 74, 86. 

^Ibid., vol. ii, p. 523; vol. iii, p. 74. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 207-209. 



6o6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

of, and a dislike for, the Quakers,^ but this matter con- 
cerned East Jersey only indirectly. The governor allowed 
Thomas Gordon, the high sheriff of East Jersey, to secure 
the election of the proprietary candidates for the first assem- 
bly by an " artifice " ; ^ nor did he undertake to interfere 
with the proprietary officers like the register, Gordon, or the 
surveyor-general, Reid. in the discharge of their duties. 
When John Barclay was commissioned as receiver-general 
of the proprietary quit-rents Cornbury even went so far in 
observing his instructions as to issue a proclamation in his 
favor, December ii, 1704.^ He also approved an act passed 
by the first assembly in December, 1703, which forbade any 
one from purchasing land of the Indians without a license 
from the governor, such licenses to> be issued only to those 
who had previously obtained a certificate from the propri- 
etary register to the effect that they held proper title. All 
purchases previously made without lawful title were to be 
void unless a grant from the proprietors was obtained within 
six months.* This act remained unrepealed for the entire 
union period. 

But the harmony between the governor and the propri- 
etors did not last long. As has been previously indicated, 
the break seems tO' have resulted from the fact that the first 
assembly, being under proprietary control, would not give 
Cornbury a sufficiently extravagant amount for the support 
of himself and his subordinates.'^ 

At the first session of the assembly that body prepared 
the important " Long Bill," the object of which was to 
assert the rights of the proprietors tO' the soil of the province. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 2. "^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 276. 

'^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 31. 
* Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 
'"New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 278. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 607 

The exact text of this measure is not now accessible, though 
what purports to be a synopsis of it is given by Cornbury in 
his letter to the Lords of January, 1703-4/ It is clear that 
the important sections relating to East Jersey were those 
declaring invalid all claims to land based upon the Nicolls 
grant and the Elizabethtown purchase, and that authorizing 
the proprietors and their agents to make distress upon in- 
habitants for the non-payment of quit-rents. Cornbur}' 
stated that such distress was to be made by the proprietary 
agents independently without any proper warrant or author- 
ization from any officer of the government." The passage 
of the " Long Bill " was, of course, opposed by the inhab- 
itants of Elizabethtown and also, according to Cornbury, 
by a delegation from Woodbridge, which maintained that it 
would destroy their charter. '' 

The fate of the " Long Bill " was indeed a matter of the 
utmost moment for the colony. Its passage and enforce- 
ment would have prevented the agitation and controversy of 
all the following years. Yet it must not be forgotten that 
it represented an effort to settle by a legislative measure, 
and a strictly party measure at that, a queston which could 
have been settled justly only by a judicial decision. As it 
was, however, Cornbury became disgusted with the assem- 
bly because of its economy in its offers of support, and 
prorogued it before the " Long Bill " could be carried.* 

In writing to the Lords, Cornbury endeavored to explain the 
many defects of the Long Bill, to show the selfish objects of 
the proprietors and the injustice done to the people of Eliza- 
bethtown. His communication contained the following re- 
markable description of the origin of the Nicolls grant."'' 

' Nera Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 28 et seq., p. 55 et seq. 

"^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 34, 59. '^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 31, 56. 

^ Assembly Journal, Oct. 13, 1703. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 30. 



6o8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

" The case stands thus. The people of New York were re- 
fractory to Nichols, but he found the people of Elizabeth- 
town ready to submit to him, by which means those of New 
York were brought to their duty. As a reward for their 
fidelity Nichols granted the people of Elizabethtown the 
lands they now hold." Such ignorance seems inexcusable 
even in Cornbury. But Robert Quary, the surveyor-gen- 
eral of customs, also wrote to the Lords of Trade against 
the Long Bill and the general course of the proprietors.^ 
Quary's character was above reproach even by his oppo- 
nents,' and he undoubtedly believed that the proprietors 
were engaged in a sort of conspiracy against the inhabitants 
of the province. The force of his views is much weakened, 
however, by his strange blindness as tO' the character of 
Cornbury. 

Before Cornbury cast himself intO' the hands of the anti- 
proprietary party he gave the first assembly one more chance 
to "answer the ends of government." But the breach only 
became wider. At the second session of the assembly bills 
were again brought forward for confirming the proprietary 
estates.^ The only concession made to the governor was 
the introduction of separate measures for East and for West 
Jersey, but the chief provisions of the former " Long Bill " 
were retained.* The assembly made only a small concession 
regarding support, and made it evident that it would grant 
such support only as a condition for the passage of the pro- 
prietary bills. Cornbury accordingly declared war against 
the proprietors and their interests by dissolving the assem- 
bly in anger. 

The Lords of Trade, in reply to his letters reporting his 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 17. 'Ibid., vol. iv, p. 50. 

^Assembly Jourfial, Sept. 6, 13, 28, 1704. 
'' New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 66. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 609 

action, so far justified him as to say that in their opinion 
the proprietary bills in their present form were unfit to be 
passed/ It cannot, of course, be believed that they knew 
anything of the influences which had induced the governor 
to take up his position. 

It was later very conclusively shown that an alliance had 
meanwhile been arranged between the governor and the 
popular party in East Jersey. Col. Quary seems to say in 
one of his letters to the Lords that he himself had suggested 
to the anti-proprietary leaders the advantages to be gained 
by them in supporting the governor.- But such a man as 
Quary could hardly have advised the course actually fol- 
lowed.'^ The fact seems undeniable that a fund, commonly 
called *' the Blind Tax." was raised by the Bownes and 
Richard Salter, of Monmouth County, by means of sub- 
scriptions from persons in sympathy with the Nicolls claim- 
ants. Many inhabitants of Elizabethtown and other settle- 
ments gave comparatively small sums, and the whole pro- 
ceeding was very badly concealed. Those subscribing do 
not in all cases appear to have known accurately for what 
purpose the money was to be applied, but it was clearly un- 
derstood that in some way the assembly was to be dissolved 
and the system of quit-rents thereby overthrown. The de- 
sire to avoid further payment of quit-rent was certainly the 
leading motive. The sum raised was said to have been as 
high as £700 or £800,* and it went as a bribe to Cornbury 
and those near him."' Cornbury understood, also, that the 
anti-proprietary party would give him general support. 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. iii, p. 99. -Ibid., vol. iii, p. 16. 

'The objections offered by the West Jersey Society to Coxe as a 
member of the governor's council suggest that he had a share in mak- 
ing the "deal." Ibid., vol. iii, p. 2>7- 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 200. Morris said it was /1500; vol. iii, p. 277. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 198 219. 



6io THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

The result, as has been elsewhere shown, was that when, 
in spite of every effort by the government, the proprietary 
interest carried by a very close margin the elections for the 
second assembly, the executive power interfered, and by a 
most unjust and unwarranted interpretation of the instruc- 
tions excluded three Quaker members from West Jersey/ 
The anti-proprietary was thus put for a brief time in con- 
trol of the legislature of the province. 

For the struggle which must now come the proprietors 
were, to say the least, very poorly prepared. Because of 
their numbers, their differences in nationality and character, 
and of their wide separation, it had always been difficult for 
them to take vigorous action. The complexity of their 
affairs was, moreover, always increasing through the con- 
tinued subdivision of the original twenty-four interests by 
sale and inheritance. Down to the surrender of 1702, how- 
ever, some degree of unity had been maintained through the 
existence of the council of proprietors. It is true that the 
authority of this body was denied by Dockwra and the 
" English Proprietors." yet its action had in general been 
effective. But apparently with the expectation that the in- 
stitution of royal government would relieve them of their 
most difficult problem, the proprietors had disarmed them- 
selves by practically abandoning their most effective weapon. 

On Dec. 2, 1702, the council of proprietors had ordered 
that an addition of 2,500 acres to a proprietary be made to 
the second general dividend of land declared in 1698, and 
it was ordered that the surveyor-general should survey to 
each proprietor his share without further particular order. " 
Thus the business of the council of proprietors, which had 
consisted largely in passing upon the titles of lands claimed, 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 88 et seq. 
'^ Elizabethtoivji Bill iv Chancery, p. 17. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 6ll 

was dissolved, for a former regulation was now renewed 
that no surveys should be made to any whose title did not 
appear upon record with the register of the proprietors. 
The register by means of this record henceforth usually cer- 
tified to the surveyor-general the share of each proprietor 
desiring lands.' The survey was then made and returned 
by the surveyor-general or his deputy as before, but it was. 
of course, impossible to issue patents any longer under the 
great seal of the province. The council of East Jersey, 
therefore decided that henceforth the return of the survey 
made and recorded in proper form should be a sufficient proof 
of title. This step was, indeed, merely adopting for East 
Jersey the method long in vogue in West Jersey.^ Having 
thus surrendered the greater part of their office to the sur- 
\eyor-general, the council of proprietors gave over meeting 
at any stated times." Conferences of the leading proprietors 
were still held when their affairs specially required. These 
seem to have taken place during the meetings of the assem- 
bly when measures relative to the land system were under 
consideration, and in effect were no more than what we 
might now term caucuses of the members of the houses 
belonging to the proprietary interest," As an effective cen- 
tral force in directing proprietary affairs, the council of 
proprietors of East Jersey disappears after the surrender. 

In meeting the second assembly Cornbury recommended, 
as his instructions required, legislation confirming the privi- 
leges of the proprietors.* He repeated this recommendation 
to other houses. But these speeches deceived nobody. The 
second assembly not only passed no measure providing for 
the interests of the proprietors, but its act " for altering 

^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 17. 

"^ Ibid., p. 22. ^Ibid., p. 22. 

* Assembly Journal, Nov. 19, 1704. 



6i2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the present constitution " regulating the election of repre- 
sentatives in the assembly struck at the root of the political 
influence of the proprietors by doing away with the require- 
ment of ownership of i,ooo acres of land for members 
of the assembly and of lOO acres for the right of suffrage. 
W\ freeholders were declared qualified to vote and to 
serve in the assembly/ With such a democratic system 
it was a foregone conclusion that the popular party would 
rule. The militia act was especially designed tO' injure the 
Quakers of West Jersey, who made up the core of the pro- 
prietary interest there, while though the act for the laying- 
out of highroads was apparently harmless enough, its exe- 
cution, if we are tO' believe Lewis Morris, was given to 
commissioners who made every effort to injure their ene- 
mies by pulling down their enclosures and laying ways 
through their orchards. They even laid a road across a 
mill-pond tO' make a proprietor pull down his dam and mills, 
though he offered tO' build a bridge for them which would 
cut off three-fourths of a mile.- The acts of the second 
assembly were, it is true, all eventually disallowed by the 
Crown; but, as usual, the disallowance was not known in 
the province until they had been in force over a year. 

The acceptance of these acts of the assembly was. how- 
ever, of less concern for the proprietors than other proceed- 
ings of the governor. He, of course, immediately quarreled 
with the fiery Morris, who boldly asserted that Cornbury 
was violating the conditions upon which the province had 
been surrendered. In the meetings of the council during 

^ Laws Enacted in 1704 (Bradford print). The West Jersey Society 
declared this act to have been instigated by Coxe. New Jersey Archives, 
vol. iii, p. 37. 

^ Laws Enacted in 1704 (Bradford print). New Jersey Archives, voL 
iii, p. 280. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 613 

the first session of the second assembly Morris for a time 
endeavored to defeat the purposes of the majority, but 
eventually he absented himself and refused to return to duty. 
Thereupon he was suspended from the council.' Cornbury 
had already recommended Coxe and Col. Townley for va- 
cancies in the council. He now recommended Roger Mom- 
pesson,- and finally even Peter Sonmans."'' All of these 
persons were opponents of the proprietors, and their ap- 
pointment meant, of course, that the upper house would 
henceforth be in the hands of their bitter enemies. Coxe 
and Sonmans were especially dreaded because of their known 
animosities and ability.^ As we have already seen, the home 
authorities did actually appoint Townley, Mompesson and 
Coxe in 1704, and Sonmans somewhat later. Morris, how- 
ever, had too much influence, and Cornbury was ordered to 
restore him to his place upon his making proper submis- 
sion.'^ But he would not resume his seat while Cornbury 
was in power.*' 

Meanwhile a keen struggle had been going on in Eng- 
land between Dockwra. Sonmans. and the Coxe interests 
on the one hand, and the West Jersey Society, with others 
interested in the Jerseys, on the other. Among the oppo- 
nents of Dockwra. Thomas Lane. Robert Michell, E. Rich- 
ier, and John Bridges of the Society were active, but the 
real leader was Paul Dominique, son of the commissioner 
of plantations," and him.self later a member of the board. 
Dockwra had recommended Sonmans for the council in 
room of Leonard, deceased, as the representative of the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 7Z-77- '■Ibid., vol. iii, p. 78. 
^' Ibid., vol. iii. p. 154. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 35. 

'^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 124. ^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 225. 

''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 51 (note). 



6i4 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

" English Proprietors," who had made him their agent and 
general attorney/ But their opponents submitted objec- 
tions to the Lords of Trade, urging that Sonmans was a 
bankrupt, that his claims in East Jersey were disputed, and 
that it was probable that his lands in any case belonged 
only to the Crown, since Arent Sonmans died an alien." 
There was also a dispute over the qualifications of Coxe 
for the council. Dominique and his party alleged that Coxe 
really had no interest in the Jerseys since his father had been 
bought out by the West Jersey Society. They also accused 
him and Quary of instigating ''a faction of the poorer sort" 
in the province to subvert that part of the constitution re- 
lating to the qualifications of members of the assembly. 
Other charges were also brought.* Coxe easily showed 
that considerable interests had been reserved when Dr. Coxe 
sold to the West Jersey Society, but tried to justify his 
conduct in the political afifairs of the province by citing the 
approval of Cornbury.^ 

When the action of the second assembly became known in 
England the contest was resumed upon different grounds. 
The West Jersey Society formally petitioned the Lords of 
Trade against Cornbury's conduct, asserting that he was 
violating the conditions of surrender embodied in his in- 
structions." Coxe, Dockwra and Sonmans, on their part, 
presented a memorial praying that Quakers be excluded 
from the council, assembly, and all places of trust in the 
colony. The triumvirate said that they were glad that the 
bill altering the constitution had not been passed by the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 40. -Ibid., vol. iii. p. 35. 

^Ibid., vol. iii, p. Zl- ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 37- 

^ Ibid., vol. iii. pp. 42-47. West Jersey Records, liber B, part i, pp. 
289-2g8. 

* AVa^ Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 81. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UXDER ROYAL RULE 615 

Crown. They prayed, however, that the freeholders in each 
county be permitted to elect whomsoever they saw tit, and 
begged leave to ofifer the draft of a proper bill.' The West 
Jersey Society retaliated by another lengthy memorial com- 
plaining of Cornbiiry and thoroughly exposing the infamous 
scheme by which he had gained control of the second assem- 
bly. They set forth also many of the other misdoings of 
the governor, and concluded by asking that Morris, their 
agent, be restored to the council.^ 

The result of this wordy war was indecisive, though 
rather favorable to Dominique and the Society. Coxe was 
named for the council with the other persons recommended 
by Cornbury," and the Lords repudiated the theory of a 
conditional surrender by the proprietors. On the other 
hand, all the acts of the second assembly were disallowed, 
and a new instruction issued regarding the constitution of 
the assembly which restored a high property qualification 
both for membership in the assembly and for the suffrage.* 
Morris was ordered restored, and a letter was sent by the 
Lords to Cornbury in which, although he was approved for 
not passing the proprietors' "long bill" in its present form, 
he was told plainly not to meddle in the future with the re- 
sults of elections." The protests of the West Jersey Society 
had evidently contributed materially in shaking the confi- 
dence of the home authorities in his lordship. 

But meanwhile an issue of even more immediate import- 
ance for the proprietorship had appeared in the colony itself. 
In 1704 Peter Sonmans arrived in the Jerseys with a com- 
mission from Dockwra and several other " English Propri- 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 82. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 85. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 125. 

''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 96. ^ Ibid., vol. iii. p. 100. 



5i6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

etors " to act as their " agent." ^ He was authorized by 
this commission to appear in court for the proprietors, to 
sell proprietary lands at the highest price obtainable, to sign 
warrants of survey for the same, and upon the return of 
the surveys, in conjunction with certain persons named in 
his instructions, and also such of the proprietors residing in 
the province as should see fit, or any three of them, to grant 
patents for the land. He might also suspend the present 
surveyor-general, William Lawrence, and appoint a succes- 
sor upon his death or removal. Sonmans was further to 
settle accounts with all quit-renters and to prosecute all such 
as refused to pay the proprietors their moneys. Any officer 
named by the proprietors, save Dockwra, might be sus- 
pended by him. The commission next declared the powers 
of the council of proprietors revoked and all surveys and 
transfers of land made by them void, as well as all other 
acts. The agent was also to take all proper legal action for 
recovering Staten Island, which rightfully belonged to the 
proprietors. He was to appoint rangers on the proprietary 
lands and attend to many other lesser matters. In return 
Sonmans was to receive iioo annually out of the quit-rents. 
The commission of Sonmans conflicted directly with that 
of John Barclay as receiver-general of quit-rents.- The 
question between them was of course a legal one and hardly 
a matter for an executive decision. But Cornbury was in 
a position to take advantage of the conflict, and did not 
hesitate to do so. Although he seems to have given a hear- 
ing to the parties,^ he promptly recognized the commission 
of Sonmans, and, on Nov. 9. 1705, issued a proclamation 
recalling his former proclamation in favor of Barclay as 

' Liber AAA of Ccnnviissiovs, p. 38. Among those signing the com- 
mission was William Penn. 
"■New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 331. "^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 131. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE ^ly 

receiver-general of quit-rents and ordering all sums due to 
proprietors to be paid to Sonmans/ 

Though Barclay was obliged to submit for the time being, 
in 1707 he produced before Cornbury and council a second 
commission as receiver-general of quit-rents signed by ten 
proprietors residing at or near London, and superseding the 
authority of Sonmans. But the royal council, instead of 
qualifying him, ordered that his papers be taken from him. 
transmitted to England, and laid before the Queen.- Mean- 
while in May, 1708, a bill in chancery had been filed against 
Barclay at the suit of Sonmans and upon his neglect to 
offer an answer, a writ of commission of rebellion was made 
out against him. Upon this he was arrested and imprisoned 
from June 3. 1708. until March 12. 1708-9. Finally Bar- 
clay succeeded in obtaining from the court further time to 
prepare an answer. He thus gained his liberty, though the 
contempt of court was not cleared.' 

Cornbury had meanwhile ordered the surrender of the 
proprietary records in the hands of Gordon, the proprietary- 
register, to Basse, the secretary of the province.* This 
order was served on Gordon at Shrewsbury, and he en- 
deavored to avoid the issue by saying that as the records 
were at Amboy he could give no positive information till 
he came there. He was. however, arrested and put under 
heavy bail to answer before the governor and council. 
Gordon was much abused by the governor for his refusal 

' Liber AAA of Comvn'ssiof/s, p. 60. 

'-.Yew Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 331-3: vol. iv, p. 43. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 375, 421. 

* Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 141, 253-4. By what authority Cornbury acted is 
not clear. The general assembly in 1707 declared that the act was pure 
usurpation. Sonmans' commission, however, had given him authority 
to suspend all proprietary officers. 



6i8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

to deliver the books, but resolutely declared that he could 
not do so until he had consulted with the proprietors. The, 
proprietors, however, yielded to necessity, and Gordon fin- 
ally surrendered the records.^ The records were delivered 
by Basse to Sonmans. Both of these worthy persons took 
due care not to allow their opponents access to them. It 
was later declared by the assembly that Sonmans carried 
the records' out of the province.^ 

The position of Sonmans was eventually further strength- 
ened by his appointment to Cornbury's council.' This had 
long been an object of Dockwra and "the English Propri- 
etors," * but the Lords of Trade were evidently a little sus- 
picious. Being willing to gratify " the English Propri- 
etors," however, they consulted Cornbury upon Sonmans' 
qualifications.'^ Cornbury replied that he was eminently 
suitable, being diligent in the interest of the proprietors and 
highly respectful to the government.'' The appointment of 
Sonmans was surely a mistake on the part of the home 
authorities, second only to the naming of Cornbury and 
Ingoldsby. 

The proprietors were still by no means routed. They 
were now compelled, however, to attack Cornbury through 
the assembly and by means of representations to the Lords 
of Trade. Supported by the provincial government, Son- 
mans was free to exercise his commission for the time being, 
and to dispose of the proprietary lands and rents as best 
suited his purposes. The details of Sonmans' administra- 
tion will probably never now be known. He certainly col- 
lected quit-rents, probably in considerable sums, but he never 

^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 76-77. 

^Ibid.. vol. iii, pp. 176-7. '^/did., vol. iii, p. 339. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. loi, 129. ^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 125. 
^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 154. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 6u> 

rendered an account of such moneys to the proprietors in 
the colony, and possibly not even to Dockwra. At a later 
time the revived council of proprietors made every effort to 
compel him to give a statement, but without success.' The 
" general agent " also disposed of proprietary lands rather 
recklessly. One important sale made under his authority 
was that of a tract of about 42,000 acres at Ramapo, in 
Bergen County, to Peter Fauconnier and a company of 
seven other well-known Huguenots, including Peter Bard 
and Elias Boudinot." A second was the " New Britain " 
grant, a large tract lying in Essex County to the northwest 
of Elizabethtown. This sale was also made to a company 
including May Bickley. Nathaniel Bonnell, Richard Town- 
ley, William Nicholl and I'eter Fauconnier. By the terms 
of the sale the only quit-rent required was that of a pepper- 
corn annually, if demanded. Under Ingoldsby the share- 
iiolders in this New Britain grant succeeded in obtaining a 
confinnatory patent.' The efforts of the legitimate propri- 
etors to recover possession of these tracts gave rise later to 
lengthy legal proceedings, and in the case of the Ramapo 
lands to much disorder and uncertainty among the settlers. 
Meanwhile an attack upon Sonmans' influence came from 
a new quarter, tlis claims to the proprieties of his father, 
Arent Sonmans, had been disputed by his sisters and their 
husbands, and Joseph Ormston, the husband of Rachel Son- 
mans, was a merchant of some influence. In September, 
1705, Joseph Ormston obtained from the Queen herself a 
royal letter directed to Cornbury in person.* This stated 
that, as Arent Sonmans had died an alien, his lands had 
reverted to the Crown. The Crown had therefore been 

' Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. ix. 
* Roome, Early Days and Early Surveys in East Jersey, p. 3t et seq. 
'^ Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 91. ^Ibid., p. "i. 



620 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

pleased to grant all its rights to Ormston and Rachel his 
wife, to be held in trust for all the children of Arent Son- 
mans, vi2.: Peter, Rachel, and Johanna, wife of Joseph 
Wright. Cornbiiry was ordered to prepare and pass, under 
the great seal of the province, letters patent to this effect. 
This letter was brought to the province by John Ormston, 
brother of Joseph.^ Whatever its legal validity, it was cer- 
tainly direct and binding upon Cornbury himself, who al- 
ways made great parade of his devotion to his royal cousin. 

But the passing of such a patent would have gone a long 
way tovy-ard destroying Sonmans' influence and greatly in- 
creased the political embarrassment of the governor. Corn- 
bury therefore put Ormston off upon various excuses, — the 
illness of his wife, the non-attendance of a sufficient number 
of the council, the necessity of giving a hearing to Peter 
Sonmans. and finally the danger of a French attack upon 
New York. Finally, Sonmans and Ormston were both 
heard at length before the council, but it was the unani- 
mous decision of that body that no action should be taken 
until the further pleasure of the Queen was known.- Thus 
the attack upon Sonmans failed for the time, but another 
ground of complaint was added to those already existing 
against the governor and his clique. 

The great contest between Cornbury and the third and 
fourth assemblies had meanwhile been raging. The brave 
and determined stand made by these bodies against the ex- 
ecutive tyranny is highly creditable both to their leaders 
and to the province at large. At the same time it is true 
that those who took the lead in opposing Cornbury were 
proprietors fighting not only for the liberties of their fellow- 
colonists, but also to preserve their own pecuniary interests 
and the social and political influence of their corporation. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. i6i. 'Ibid., vol. iii. pp. 161-3. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 621 

Morris, Jennings and Gordon were striving for other mo- 
tives as well as patriotism. 

In the remonstrance of 1707 the putting of the East 
Jersey records into the hands of Sonmans was set forth as 
one of the seven great grievances of the province/ In the 
reply of the assembly to Cornbury's answer," further tell- 
ing arguments were advanced against his attitude toward 
the proprietors. The assembly showed plainly that Corn- 
bury had no legal power to judge as to the relative holdings 
of proprietors. That was a matter for judicial decision 
alone. Further, even if Sonmans' commission were ad- 
mitted as valid, it gave him no authority to keep the records. 
Moreover, Sonmans was not a resident of the province, had 
given no security, and was declared to be of notorious 
character. 

On the other hand, the animosity shown by Cornbury 
and his clique against Morris and Gordon had something 
more than a political motive. The continued efforts against 
Gordon because of his refusal to obey Cornbury in surren- 
dering the records are elsewhere described.^ Among other 
persons prosecuted before the corrupt tribunals several, like 
Barclay and George Willocks, were leading proprietors.^ 

The removal of Cornbury was, of course, in itself a great 
victory for the majority interest among the proprietors and 
may well have saved them from complete ruin. But the 
appointment of Lovelace and the preparation of his instruc- 
tions were the occasion of a new struggle between the fac- 
tions. This centered at first about the appointments to the 
council. Morris of course resumed his post as president, '" 

' AVa' Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 176. 
'Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 253-5. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 75. 

* Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715'). p. 48. 
'" Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 317. 



(-^22. THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

and the influence of William Penn secured the exclusion 
of Revell and Leeds of West Jersey, who were henchmen 
of Col. Coxe.^ But the efforts of the West Jersey Society 
and of Joseph Ormston to secure the dismissal of Sonmans 
did not succeed." During this conflict both factions among 
the proprietors in England made efforts tO' convince the 
Lords of Trade that they held the preponderating interest. 
According to the list of shareholders submitted by Ormston 
the persons who signed Sonmans' commission as " agent " 
held only four proprieties, while those residing in and about 
London who did not sign held eleven and three-fourths." 
Dockwra, however, claimed for his faction ten and one- 
half, while those who did not sign had but eight and three- 
fourths.* The difference was due chiefly to the fact that 
Dockwra credited Peter Sonmans with four and one-fourth 
proprieties, while Ormston gave these to himself and to 
Joseph Wright. The name of William Penn, strangely 
enough, appears among those admitted tO' have signed. 

The administration of Lovelace brought also an active 
revival of the conflict of the proprietary factions in the 
province, but it was too brief to permit a definite issue. 
The struggle is so closely connected with the conflict of 
political parties, which was partly its outgrowth, that it is 
xlifficult indeed to distinguish the two. Lovelace did not, 
like Hunter later, throw himself openly into the arms of 
either faction. As has already been indicated, however, he 
inclined to the proprietary side, which during his brief rule 
controlled the assembly. Not only was Fauconnier super- 
seded as receiver-general by the proprietor, Miles Forster, 
as treasurer,^ but Thomas Gordon himself became chief jus- 

' Ne7v Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 303. 

'lb-id., vol. iii, pp. 300, 310, 312. "'Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 313. oM- 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, p. 316. '"Assembly Journal, March 24, 1708. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 623 

tice in room of his persecutor, Mompesson.^ This appoint- 
ment carried with it the suspension of all proceedings 
against Barclay and the other proprietors who were in the 
clutches of the courts, and led indirectly to the indictment 
of Basse and of Peter Sonmans for various high crimes." 

The bitter warfare of memorials and addresses carried on 
between the house and the lieutenant-governor and council 
during Lovelace's only assembly has been elsewhere de- 
scribed. It is important to notice that the house directed 
especial animosity against Sonmans, and in a lengthy memo- 
rial not only laid bare his arbitrary and unwarranted con- 
duct in numerous legal proceedings, but declared that the 
tyrannical proceedings of Cornbury were partly due to his 
advice. His personal character, as usual, was not spared, 
and the house prayed for his dismissal from the council. ' 
The lengthy address of defense prepared by the lieutenant- 
governor and council, on the other hand, skilfully paraded 
the misdoings of the proprietors.* It was pointed out that 
Gordon had begun the whole conflict by his improper con- 
duct as sheriff when the first assembly was chosen. The 
acts of Gordon were said to be due to the influence of 
Morris, Johnstone, and Willocks, whose tool he was."' 
Much was made of the fact that Johnstone admitted having 
tried to bribe Cornbury,® and that George Willocks, repre- 
sented as a leading spirit among the proprietors, was a 
" high-flown " Jacobite, who refused to take the oaths of 
allegiance and "upbraids other gentlemen — nay, even mem- 
bers of the council — with being damned for taking them." ^ 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 500. 

■Minutes of the Supreme Court (1704-1715), May Term, 1709. 

'' Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 374-8. 

^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 390-415. ^Ibid., vol. iii, p. 392. 

'''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 403. ''Ibid., vol. iii, p. 395. 



624 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Moreover, the old decision in the case of Jones vs. Fuller- 
ton was recited to show the injustice of the claims of the 
proprietors to the Elizabethtown tract ^ and the wickedness 
of tlieir efforts to persuade Cornbur}- to pass their " long 
bill." " The address contained also a bitter personal attack 
on Lewis Morris and many other allegations against the 
proprietors too lengthy to recite here. 

The accession of Ingoldsby, however, lost for the pro- 
prietors whatever advantages they had gained under Love- 
lace. It meant, of course, the revival of the influence of 
Sonmans. Coxe, and Basse. Mompesson and Pinhome 
were restored to their places at the head of the courts, and 
Sonmans and Basse were quickly acquitted by packed juries.^ 
^lorris was once more suspended from the council, while 
the unfortunate Barclay was by order of the council again 
prosecuted by the attorney-general upon information. He 
was charged upon ver}- insuflicient evidence with altering 
entries in the proprietary records/ 

The sreat efforts made bv Ingoldsbv and his council to 
cast upon the Quakers the blame for the defeat of the meas- 
ures in aid of the Nicholson- Vetch expedition "^ have their 
place also as events in the warfare between the proprietors 
and their opponents. But this matter chiefly concerned the 
proprietorship of West Jersey. Yet we must recall that in 
the fifth, or second assembly of Ligoldsby's time, there were 
further developments. Since the defeat of the "' long bill "' 
the proprietors had apparently made no further direct eflforts 
to secure the confirmation of their claims by a legislative 
act. In the fifth assembly. 'however, a bill for settling the 

*AVa' Jersey Archives, vol. iii. p. 403. ^ Ibid., vol. iii. p. 404- 

^Minutes of the Suprane Court (1704-1715). pp. 75, 80-1. 
*Neu' Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, pp. 358, 364. 
^Ibid.. vol. iii. p. 470. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UXDER ROYAL RULE 625 

rights of the proprietors and purchasers was ordered pre- 
pared/ As the majority of the representatives were not 
strongly in the interest of the proprietors, we may question 
whether this order was made in good faith. The motive 
was doubtless to make it appear that Ingoldsby was en- 
deavoring to carry out his instructions. Bills confirming 
the rights of the proprietors of the two divisions respectively 
were duly prepared and laid before the house.- But the 
East Jersey bill was referred to a committee with an anti- 
proprietary- majority, although Gordon was chosen chair- 
man. The committee thereupon proceeded to blot out and 
cancel all the bill except the title, detaining Gordon by force 
while it did so.' For this act Capt. Price. Lawrence, and 
^lott of the committee were forced to ask pardon at the bar 
of the house; * but the assembly at once voted not to bring- 
in a new proprietary measure. "^ I'nder Ingoldsby the fac- 
tional spirit evidently continued to run high, but there was 
after all little change in the situation. 

Thus, up to the accession of Hunter, royal rule had 
brought little or no advantage to the proprietors of East 
Jersey, or, to speak more exactly, to the majority interest. 
The enforcement of their claims to the Elizabethtown tract 
was as far off as ever. The council of proprietors which 
had given some show of unity to their action before the 
surrender had been virtually dissolved. The executive man- 
agement of their affairs was still in the hands of their enemy, 
Sonmans. The records upon which a great part of the land 
titles of East Jersey rested were still in his control. It 
seems certain that the payment of quit-rents had not been 
enforced in the greater part of the province, and such sums 

^ Assetnbly Journal, Dec. 7. i/Og. 'Ibid., Dec. 13, 1709. 

^Ibid., Jan. 2, 170Q-10. ''Ibid., Jan. 3, 1709-10. 

^ Ibid. The West Jersey bill was defeated in the council. 



526 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

as had been raised were in the hands of Sonmans. More- 
over, many of the leading proprietors, as Morris, Gordon, 
Barclay and Willocks, had suffered humiliating personal 
hardships. 

But it is important to notice that the leading part 
in the attack upon the proprietors has been taken by 
Sonmans, Dockwra and Coxe, who represented the minority 
element among the proprietors themselves. The old pop- 
ular opposition in Elizabethtown and elsewhere still existed 
and had given general support to Sonmans and Coxe. But 
the alliance was one of convenience only. Mutual opposi- 
tion to the Amboy clique was the only bond of union be- 
tween the New England settlers and the ring of speculators 
and adventurers who had seized power, nor should the for- 
mer be charged with all the misdoings of the latter. The 
Elizabethtown party w^ere willing to take advantage of the 
situation to escape the hated quit-rent, but cared little for 
the other questions at issue. During this period it is indeed 
rather noticeable that the persons who were most active in 
the assembly and among the people in carrying on the war- 
fare against the proprietors were not representatives of 
Elizabethtown, but of Monmouth — the Bownes. Richard 
Salter, the Lawrences, and Gershom Mott. 

With the accession of the Scot, Robert Hunter, the situa- 
tion changed. Hunter began his rule by an effort to com- 
pose misunderstandings and tO' secure harmony. In his 
first speech to the assembly he pointed out that successful 
government was impossible if disputes over property were 
made political issues. He called upon all to conduct them- 
selves like good subjects, and to leave the decision of prop- 
erty disputes to the courts.^ But such a result was impos- 
sible. The struggle had been too bitter, and the stake in- 

^ JVe7v Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 427. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 627 

volved was too great. Moreover, it was well understood 
that there was no justice in the courts as then constituted. 
The first session of the sixth assembly was marked by the 
usual quarrel between Cornbury's ring in the council and 
the assembly, in which the council, in spite of Hunter's pro- 
test, threw out nearly all the measures sent up for their 
approval,^ and the assembly presented their bitter addresses 
against Basse ^ and William Hall.^ Sonmans was also at- 
tacked by the assembly, and an affidavit declaring that he 
had been guilty of conduct disparaging to the new governor 
was submitted by sundry inhabitants of East Jersey, among 
whom Willocks and Barclay were prominent." 

It has been elsewhere described how, under these circum- 
stances, Hunter saw that he must identify himself with 
either one party or the other. He recognized clearly that 
the clique in the council was a corrupt ring acting for im- 
proper motives, while the proprietary party certainly repre- 
sented the most respectable elements in the colony.'' It must 
not be forgotten, either, that Hunter was himself a Scot, 
like Gordon, Johnstone, Willocks, and Barclay. Hunter 
therefore declared war upon Sonmans and Coxe. Prac- 
tically all of Cornbury's officers, both civil and military, were 
dismissed. Jamison and Farmar succeeded Mompesson 
and Pinhorne as judges of the supreme court, while Hunter 
recommended, and after the usual unfortunate delay secured 
the dismissal of Coxe, Sonmans, Pinhorne, and Hall from 
the council. A proprietary majority thenceforth controlled 
the upper house in which, in addition tO' Morris, Gordon. 
John Anderson, Col. John Hamilton and Elisha Parker were 
prominent. The influence of the anti-proprietary party in 
the executive department was thus completely destroyed. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 51 et seq. 

"^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 71. ^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 79. 

' Ihid., vol. iv, p. 16. ^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 51 et seq. 



628 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

But, tliong-h Hunter had assumed office in 1710, it was not 
until the end of 1713 that the sweeping- changes described 
had been carried through/ Meanwhile things had remained 
as under Ingoldsby. 

The changes in the colony were, of course, accompanied 
by the usual struggle in England between the West Jersey 
Society and Dockwra. Dominique and Richier of course, 
when consulted by the Lords, supported the recommenda- 
tions of Hunter.' Dockwra left no stone unturned in op- 
posing the governor, trying especially to make it appear 
that Hunter was attacking the " South Britons " and 
churchmen in the province. In behalf of the threatened 
councilors. Dockwra submitted a lengthy letter from Coxe.* 
representing the conduct of Hunter in the worst light.* 

Meanwhile Sonmans, who evidently felt the net tighten- 
ing about him, fled from the province, carrying the land 
records with him. Warrants were issued against him,^ but 
a trunk containing the records eventually fell into the hands 
of Basse, who- was a surveyor of customs at Burlington. 
Basse declared that he thought the trunk contained smuggled 
goods, and so- opened it, but some one had previously sent 
him the key, and Hunter believed that the whole matter had 
been previously arranged. At any rate Basse refused to 
surrender the records to any one." Sonmans appears to 
have removed to Pennsylvania, but was wise enough not to 
make himself very conspicuous there.'' 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 484. ^^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 140. 

* No name is attached to the letter, but the writer speaks of Hugh 
Huddy as his lieutenant-colonel. Ibid., vol. iv, p. 129. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 116, 118. ^Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 559. 

'^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 172. In March, 1713-14, the records were by order 
of the governor and council turned over to Thomas Gordon. Ibid., 
vol. xiii, p. 534. 

"^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, p. 351, but see also, Ne'w 
Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 197. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 629 

^vTeanwhile Hunter's position was rendered insecure, first 
by the overthrow of the Whig ministry, and then by the 
death of Anne. Dr. Daniel Coxe, the original purchaser of 
West Jersey from Byllinge, and his son, Samuel Coxe, peti- 
tioned the Lords against a renewal of his commission/ and 
Dr. Coxe seconded their action by a letter to the Lords of 
Trade in which he accused Hunter of violating his instruc- 
tions and of committing divers other illegal acts.' Hunter 
was evidently worried by this flank attack.^ but he actually 
had little cause for anxiety, as his administration had given 
satisfaction, and he was immediately re-commissioned.* 
Meanwhile Col. Coxe and Basse had been carrying on an 
active campaign against Hunter in the province itself, and. 
as has been elsewhere shown, succeeded in getting control 
for a short time of the seventh assembly. The issue had. 
however, now become partly a personal one between Coxe 
and the governor, and partly a religious question between 
the churchmen and the Quakers. The supporters of Coxe 
were chiefly from West Jersey, while in the Eastern division 
only the representatives of Monmouth and of Bergen, where 
it appears that Sonmans had much influence, proved willing 
to oppose the governor directly.' 

The expulsion of Coxe and his followers from the assem- 
bly definitely ended the conflict, and left Hunter and his 
supporters in control of the political situation.* Coxe, 
driven from the province, journeyed to England with the 
purpose of making direct representations to the home 
government,' while Basse eventually made his peace with 

' Neiv Jersey Archives , vol. iv, p. 198. "^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 2c,>. 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 210. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 202. 

'"Assembly Journal, May 21, 22, 25, 1716. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 254, 255. 
''Ibid., vol. iv, p. 262. 



630 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the party in power. Thus, at length, by ^lay, 17 16, all de- 
partments of the government were in the hands of the pro- 
prietary party. 

Upon the rout of the '' general agent " a complete re- 
organization of the proprietary affairs which had fallen into 
such demoralization became necessary. But as usual it was 
so hard to secure unanimity that the required changes occu- 
pied a considerable time, and indeed were not completed 
until the next administration. In 171 5, however, shortly 
after Hunter had received his commission from George I. 
James Smith appeared before the governor and council with 
his royal patent as secretary of the province, and also with 
a commission from the proprietors of both divisions of New 
Jersey as their register and recorder. At the same time 
James Alexander produced a commission as surveyor- 
general of both Jerseys. Smith and Alexander bore also a 
royal letter, approving them as recorder and surveyor re- 
spectively. Both gentlemen were then qualified by taking 
the oaths, and the council ordered a proclamation issued in 
their favor and prohibiting all other persons from exercising 
the offices in question.^ In the next year Alexander re- 
ceived authority from Charles Dunster and Joseph Ormston. 
two prominent proprietors in England, to collect proprietary 
quit-rents and arrearages, which they believed would 
amount to about £500 per annum, country money." He 
was evidently admitted as the authorized receiver-general 
of quit-rents.' Thus the question as to the proper quali- 
fication of proprietary officers was for the time definitely 
settled. As may be easily appreciated, there was especial 

^ Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 2-},. 

-Ibid., vol. iv, p. 241. Dunster and Ormston state that they enclose 
an order from the King to the governor to admit Alexander to the office. 
^Minutes of the Cojtncil of Proprietors of East Jersey, liber A. !>. 4- 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 63 1 

advantage in connecting the recordership with the otlfice of 
provincial secretary. 

The excellent position of the proprietary affairs was fur- 
ther strengthened by the close friendship which soon sprang 
up between Governor Hunter and several of the leading pro- 
prietors. Among the governor's friends Morris ^ and Dr. 
Johnstone are notable.'' James Alexander, also, whose con- 
nection with the proprietorship begins during this period, 
was in a sense Hunter's protege.^ Thomas Gordon was at 
first high in the confidence of the governor, and even the 
Jacobite, George Willocks, who seems to have been com- 
monly regarded as a rather unscrupulous speculator, might 
be counted among Hunter's supporters.* But though Hun- 
ter's association with the proprietors was close, and though 
he was now virtually their political leader, there is no 
evidence to show that he was at any time influenced 
by any but proper motives in his attitude. Bitterly as Hun- 
ter was attacked by Coxe and his other opponents, they 
never appear to have charged him with corruption in any 
form.' 

But the time had already gone by when the proprietors 
could assert their claims arbitrarily, either through the pas- 
sage of a legislative measure like the lamented "Long Bill," 
or otherwise. Hunter had declared for a settlement of all 
questions of property through the courts, and even the pro- 
prietors must live up to the declaration. Yet with Jamison 
and Farmar presiding over the supreme court a decision in 
their favor was almost as certain as an unfavorable one 
would have been under Mompesson and Pinhorne. From 

'The son of Lewis Morris was Robert Hunter Morris. 

^Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 63. ^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 399 (note). 

* Ne7v Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 119. 

•'' Rurnet was not so fortunate. Ibid., vol. v, p. 199. 



632 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the point of view of the proprietors the establishment of 
their claims over the Elizabethtown tract was the important 
issue of the hour, and everything did indeed seem to indi- 
cate a final settlement of the troublesome question of the 
Nicolls grant. 

In the November term of the supreme court, in the 
first year of George I, the proprietors brought a test 
case against the Elizabethtown claimants/ This was an 
action brought on the demise of the Reverend Edward 
Vaughan, as assignee of James Emmott for recovery of 
three hundred acres granted by patent tO' Emmott, April 6, 
1686, which tract Joseph Woodruff had acquired by the 
famous Clinker Lot survey. The cause was tried in the 
next year, and a special verdict found setting forth the title 
of the proprietors, the Indian purchase of Bailey and his 
associates, and the Nicolls grant. The former was on the 
part of the plaintiff, the latter two for the defendant. This 
•issue was argued at length for several terms, and finally in 
May term of the fourth year of George I judgment was 
given for the plaintiff. " 

The effect of the proprietary victory was similar to that 
of the defeat of Capt. James Carteret in 1670. With the 
strong hand of Hunter at the helm any riotous or rebellious 
outbreak was of course impossible, and the Elizabethtown 
people had tO' face the inevitable. They accordingly pro- 
ceeded to buy up the proprietary' rights to numerous tracts, 
lying in lands still held by the proprietors in common, and 
to have their lands appropriated to^ them under the propri- 
etary agreements for apportioning dividends. Between 171 7 
and 1 72 1 no less than forty-five such surveys to inhabitants 

^ Elizabethtmv7i Bill in Chancery, p. 46; Hatfield. History of Eliza- 
beth, p. 307. 

-An appeal to the governor and council by Woodruff was fruitless. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 633 

of Elizabethtown were recorded. Several of these were 
made to descendants of the original associates, as Joseph 
Meeker, Nathaniel Whitehead. Benjamin Ogden, Robert 
Ogden, and Benjamin Bond. Several were made to John 
Harriman, the Clinker Lot surve3^or, and it is asserted that 
he accepted a ''deputation" from the surveyor-general, and 
himself performed many of the surveys.^ But though the 
dispute over the Nicolls grant thus seemed to be settled, it 
is clear that the Elizabethtown claimants by no means aban- 
doned their hopes of reopening the question in the future. 

It was only natural that, under these conditions, there 
should be a considerable revival of proprietary activity, and 
accordingly we find that from about the time of Hunter's 
victory over Sonmans and Coxe the taking-up of dividends 
and parts of dividends by proprietors went on much more 
actively than before. For example, from 171 6 to 1730 no 
less than thirty-five surveys were made to proprietors within 
the limits of the Elizabethtown tract." The surveys made 
to the inhabitants during this period were mostly for small 
amounts, the largest being to Henry Norris for only two 
hundred acres. But several of the surveys to proprietors 
were for large amounts. Willocks, in 1716, secured 9,000 
acres; William Penn. in 1717, 7,500 acres; James Logan 
and John Budd, in 1720, 8,990 acres; and the West Jersey 
Society the huge tract of 91,895 acres, only a part of which, 
however, lay within the disputed district. But these tracts 
were exceptionally large. The other proprietary surveys 
were mainly for amounts under 300 acres. 

Under these conditions the proprietors were able to turn 
their serious attention to the two boundary disputes which 
had caused more or less trouble in the Jerseys ever since the 

'Elizabethtown Bill itt Chancery, p. 46, appendix, schedule ix. 
'Ibid., appendix, schedule iii. 



534 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

sale by Lord John Berkeley to Edward Byllinge. The first 
of these was regarding the line of division between East and 
West Jersey, and the other as to the northern boundary be- 
tween New Jersey and New York. The grant of East Jer- 
sey made by James of York to Carteret in July, 1674, had 
conveyed all lands north of a line from Barnegat to a creek 
on the Delaware next below Rankokus-kill/ But by the 
(pintipartite division of 1676 Carteret agreed with the pro- 
prietors of West Jersey upon a new line. This line was to 
be drawn from the most northerly point of the province to 
the most southerly point of the east side of Little Egg 
Harbor." The northernmost point of the province was "ye 
Northernmost Brance of the said Bay or River of Delaware 
which is in fourtie one degrees and fourtie minutes of 
Lattitude." ' 

There had been no reason, however, for the actual run- 
ning of the line between East and West Jersey until the 
former province passed into the hands of the twenty-four 
proprietors. But in 1683 Governor Gawen Lawrie of East 
Jersey was instructed to make all needful preparations to- 
ward the actual survey of the boundary.* At length, at a 
council held at Fort James. New York, in June, 1686, Gov- 
ernor Lawrie of East Jersey and Governor John Skene of 
West Jersey agreed with Dongan of New York that the 
Hues of the three provinces should be run. As the first step, 
it was to be determined which was the northernmost branch 
of the Delaware, and, if any controversy arose, it was to 
be determined by the votes of two of the three surveyors 
designated : George Keith, Andrew Robinson, and Philip 
Wells. "^ These well-considered arrangements, however, led 
to no satisfactory result. This outcome may have been due 

^ NeTt' Jersey Archives, vol. i, pp. 161, 162. '^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 212. 
^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 12. ^ Ibid., vol. i. p. 428. "Ibid., vol. i, p. 5I7- 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 63; 

to the fact that there is no point on the Delaware River 
proper in 41° 40', nor indeed very near it.' 

In September, 1686, therefore, Robert Barclay and Ed- 
ward Byllinge, as governors of the two Jerseys, entered 
into a formal agreement to submit the question of the boun- 
dary between their provinces to arbitration.- The arbitra- 
tors were to make as equal a division of New Jersey as 
they could, according to their best judgment and skill, and 
John Ried and William Emley were chosen to make the 
award. They, on Jan. 8. 1686-7, decided that the line be- 
tween East and West Jersey should run from the north side 
of the inlet at Little Egg Harbor " on a straight line to 
Delaware river, northwest and fifty minutes more westerh 
according to natural position and not according to the mag- 
net whose variation is nine degrees westward." '* This line 
would pass within seven miles of the falls of the Delaware 
and strike that river far south of 41° 40'.* Therefore 
strong opposition seems to have been at once ofifered to the 
award by the " West Jersians," who regarded it as unfair 
to their division. George Keith, the surveyor-general ot 
East Jersey, however, undertook to survey the line. He 
began at Egg Harbor and ran the line for about sixty miles 
till it struck the south branch of the Raritan near Three 
Bridges. But at this point Keith found himself within lands 
claimed under grant from East Jersey, and either for this 
or other reason did not persist.^ Further controversy be- 

' Whitehead states that Robinson and Wells located the point on the 
Delaware, though the northern boundary line was not run. Proceedings 
of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. viii, p. 163. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. i, p. 519. 

^ Ibid., vol. i, p. 523. This is often called the Greenland award because 
made at the house of Henry Greenland of Piscataway. 

^ Voorhees, E. and W. Boundary Line Controversy, p. 10. 

''/bid., p. II et seq. 



536 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

tween the proprietors followed, and the " East Jersians " 
appear to have contemplated continuing Keith's line or suing 
for the face of the five hundred pounds bond given by the 
" West Jersians " to abide by the aw^ard.^ 

But finally, in 1688, Robert Barclay of East Jersey and 
Dr. Daniel Coxe who claimed full governmental authority 
over West Jersey made a new agreement for the division 
of the province.- Keith's line was to be adopted as far as 
sun^eyed. Then the line was to continue across the south 
branch of the Raritan in a northeasterly direction to the 
north branch, then up this to its north end, and thence east- 
ward to the nearest point on the Passaic; thence down this 
to its junction with the Pequanac, and up this as long as it 
runs northerly or northwesterly to the bounds of the prov- 
ince, or until it reaches 41°, and then due east to " Hudson's 
River." In obtaining this agreement Coxe secured a great 
advantage. There were in the province 7,795 square miles. 
West Jersey received 5,403. while East Jersey had only 2- 
392." The agreement was naturally confirmed by the coun- 
cil of proprietors of West Jersey,* but it was so greatly to 
the disadvantage of East Jersey that, much as Barclay was 
respected, the other proprietors of that section rejected it. 

As a result the line had simply remained unsettled since 
that time and serious inconvenience had followed. Divers 
surveys on West Jersey rights were made to the east of 
Keith's line, while an even more troublesome conflict of 
claims occurred to the north and west on the Delaware.' 
With the rehabilitation of the East Jersey proprietorship 
under Hunter it was felt by all concerned that a definite 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. i. p. 522; vol. ii, p. 24. 

"^ Ibid., vol. ii, p. 34. -' Voorhees op. cit., p. 14. 

* Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. i. p. 15. 

'''New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 377, 380. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 637 

settlement was necessary, especially when a prominent part 
in East Jersey councils was being taken by those energetic 
land speculators, Willocks and Johnstone. Accordingly the 
" West Jersians " opened negotiations with the proprietors 
of East Jersey through James Logan, the well-known 
"agent" of William Penn. who was now taking an active 
interest in the Jerseys. In a letter to George Willocks of 
December, 1718, Logan, while insisting upon the interpre- 
tation put by the West Jersey proprietorship upon the terms 
of the agreement of Coxe and Barclay, nevertheless ad- 
mitted that the two governors had acted absurdly in en- 
deavoring to alter so arbitrarily the original contract be- 
tween Carteret and the Friends. Logan urged the necessity 
of an arrangement which would give justice to those who 
had purchased from either division in good faith. ^ 

The result of the negotiations between the proprietors of 
the two divisions was. that after active work on both sides," 
Hunter's last assembly was induced to pass an "Act for 
Running and Ascertaining the Line of Partition or Divi- 
sion between the Eastern and Western Divisions of New 
Jersey and for Preventing Disputes for the Future Con- 
cerning the Same, etc." ^ According to the arrangement 
therein provided for, the agreement between Coxe and Bar- 
clay was to be entirely set aside and a return to be made to 
the " Indenture Ouintipartite," wherein the line of division 
was intended to run from the most northerly point of the 
northernmost branch of the Delaware River* to the most 

^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 377. For further evidence of the fairness of Logan 
see ibid., vol. iv, p. 390. 

*In November, 1718, the West Jersey council declared that the Bar- 
clay-Coxe line was the true one and that the attempt by East Jersey to 
alter it would lead to confusion and injury. 

^ Allinson, Statutes of Nezv Jersey. 

*The northernmost point on the Delaware River was about to be fixed 



638 ^^-E PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

southerly point of the east side of Little Egg- Harbor. This 
original line was to be run " straight and direct." A com- 
putation was then to be made of all lands taken up by the 
Eastern proprietors to the westward of the line and east of 
Keith's line of 1687. All such lands were to be confirmed 
to the persons holding them. A survey and computation 
was also to be made of lands taken up by the Western pro- 
prietors eastward of the line. If the two quantities bal- 
anced, possession was to be free, but in case one overbal- 
anced the other, the difference was to be made up out of lands 
taken up and surveyed for the proprietors of the division 
which held the excess. But no lands already improved were 
to be taken as such equivalent. Lands taken as equivalent 
were to be held as belonging to the division by the propri- 
etors of which they were held. It was also declared that, 
until it was determined of what amount the discount should 
consist, no land should be surveyed or taken up in either 
division except tracts of not above one hundred acres be- 
longing to actual inhabitants and settlements. 

A very important portion of the act then followed, which 
related not to the boundary line but to the more proper 
keeping of all proprietai-y records within the respective 
divisions. It was enacted that the respective surveyors- 
general should henceforth keep duly established offices at 
Amboy and Burlington, wherein should be carefully kept 
the surveys of all lands thereafter made. These were to be 
held good evidence of title and might be pleaded in suits 
at law. The surveyors-general were also authorized to sue 
for and to recover all maps, draughts, books of surveys, etc., 
from all persons throughout the province which might be 

by a joint commission of the Jerseys and New York provided for under 
the act "for running and ascertaining the division line between thi» 
province and New York." 



I 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 639 

of use for proving the rights of the proprietors and those 
claiming under them. These were to be safely kept within 
the respective offices. But such as were private property 
were to be returned to their owners when authenticated 
copies had been made. For the proper dehvering of all 
such records to their successors the said surveyors were 
to give £1000 security to Governor Hunter. To pre- 
vent difficulties which had previously arisen from per- 
sons having surveys made and not recorded, it was or- 
dered that all surveys, the certificates of which were in the 
hands of inhabitants of the Jerseys or of neighboring prov- 
inces, and which were not recorded within two years, should 
be void. If the certificates were held beyond sea, they must 
be recorded within three years. 

For the execution of this act, as well as for that of the act 
for running the line between New Jersey and New York, 
the proprietors were to raise such sums as were necessary, 
since the assembly had refused to saddle the charges 
upon the province.^ Commissioners and managers for the 
running of the lines were appointed; for the eastern divi- 
sion John Hamilton, David Lyell, George Willocks, and 
John Harrison; and for the western, Isaac Sharp, James 
Logan, Thomas Lambert, and John Reading. These per- 
sons were after due consultation with the proprietors, to 
collect and receive the sums necessary, but the sums were 
not to exceed £650 for East Jersey and £500 for 
West Jersey. The commissioners were, moreover, given 
power to act in the courts, to sell and convey lands, 
and to do all that should be necessary for the execution of 
their duties. But, if it was found necessary to sell lands 
for the purpose of raising funds, the managers of the east- 
ern division were to sell no more than four thousand acres, 

' Assetnbly Journal, Jan. 23, 1718-19. 



640 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



and that in one tract out of the unappropriated lands. The 
managers were further empowered, by the consent of the 
major part of their proprietors or their agents, to appoint 
the surveyor-general and such other persons as were neces- 
sary to run the lines and to make the surveys. 

The managers were to have as emolument ten per cent 
of all sums raised. If any of the managers died or refused 
to serve, the governor for East Jersey and the council of 
proprietors for West Jersey were to name successors. 

Though the act oi lyig failed in the attainment of its 
immediate objects, it brought important results. Hence- 
forth the surveyor-general's offices were more regularly 
maintained, and the surveys entered in separate books in a 
systematic manner instead of being recorded almost at ran- 
dom amid other proprietary records. The chances of dis- 
putes and uncertainties over land titles M^ere thus greatly 
decreased. It is certainly a fair inference to attribute the 
carrying out of the new system, if not indeed its origin, to 
the surveyor-general, James Alexander, whose ability is fully 
demonstrated by an abundance of other evidence.^ 

But, in spite of the act. the question of the division line 
was not yet settled. The commissioners named in the act 
met after a short interval at " Trentham," and agreed to 
run the line as soon as possible.' The proprietors of the 
eastern division were, of course, anxious that this should be 
done, and the council of West Jersey approved the action 
of their commissioners, and named John Reading to attend 
Alexander in running the line. But serious opposition 
came from Col. Coxe, then in England making representa- 
tions against the Hunter regime. He held large interests 
on the upper Delav/are which he apparently believed to be 

*The office at Burlington was, however, kept by Isaac Decowe as 
deputy. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii. p. 208. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 64I 

threatened by the act.' Accordingly he entered a caveat 
against it,- and by his activity made its acceptance by the 
home authorities doubtful.'' Still, the line would no doubt 
have been run had it not been for the retirement of Hunter, 
who just at this time turned over the government to Burnet. 
Coxe now returned to the Jerseys, and soon succeeded in 
gaining a leading influence in the council of West Jersey 
proprietors itself, of which he actually became president.* 
As a result, the West Jersey proprietors not only refused 
to cooperate further in the running of tlie line, but began 
to make efforts to secure the disallowance or repeal of the 
act which authorized it." The East Jersey proprietors were 
therefore left with the act in their favor but without the 
power to secure its execution in due form. The further 
development of the question will be considered later. 

Closely connected with the question of the division line 
was the matter of the northern boundary of New 
Jersey. When the territory concerned was still a wilder- 
ness, the exact location of the boundary made little 
difference. Yet some efforts to adjust the difficulty had 
been made during the proprietary period. New York 
had at one time advanced the almost absurd claim that 
the dividing line should run from the head of Con- 
necticut River to Reedy Island at the head of Dela- 
ware Bay. This claim was, of course, based upon a 
manifest misinterpretation of the working of Charles II's 
first grant, and was soon given up. It appears that after 
the meeting held in 1686 by Governors Dongan, Lawrie, 
and Skene, the surveyors by them appointed proceeded to 

"^ Neiv Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 386. "^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 445. 

*The act was confirmed by the Crown, but not until 1729; ibid., vol. 
xiv, pp. 451-2. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii. 
'•'Ibid., bk. iii, pp. 239, 243, 251. 



642 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

fix the point 41" upon the west shore of the Hudson. This 
point they located upon the " high clifts of the Point of 
Tapaan," one minute and twenty-five seconds to the north- 
ward of ''Younckers Milne." ^ Nevertheless the rest of the 
boundary line was left undetermined. But it was later 
claimed on behalf of New York that the true point fell due 
westward of Yonkers Mills, and that the division line 
should run west to the forks on the Delaware, where Easton 
now stands. It was even asserted that Governor Hamilton 
of East Jersey had admitted that the point on the Hudson 
was directly opposite Frederick Phillipp's lower mills.' 

Under the royal rule the growth of New Jersey to the 
north and west was rapid, and during the proprietary^ re- 
vival under Hunter divers East Jersey proprietors took up 
lands in the neighborhood of the upper Delaware. Among 
these were Willocks and Johnstone. Disputes over land 
titles became really dangerous to the peace of the provinces.' 
and the matter was made worse by the wholesale smuggling. 
in which the officials of New- York believed that the inhabi- 
tants of the disputed district engaged. When Hunter met 
his last assembly he was. however, able to inform them that 
he had already procured an act from the assembly of New 
York, making an appropriation for running the line and 
authorizing him to appoint commissioners to cooperate in 
so doing with representatives of the Jerseys. He urged 
upon the New Jersey assembly the need of action in the 
matter.* The assembly proved willing enough to make 
suitable arrangements for running the line, but unwilling to 
put the expense upon the province. An act for running the 
line was accordingly passed, and the act for determining the 

'AVa- Jersey Arrhives. vol. i. pp. 520. 521: but see vol. iv, p. 414. 
^ Ibid., vol. iv. p. 434. ^Ibid., vol. iv. pp. 441, 446. 

*/bid.. vol. iv, p. 365. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UXDER ROYAL RULE 643 

division line between East and West Jersey ordered that 
the commissioners named for that purpose should have 
charge of the running of the province line as well and that 
their further expenses should also be met by the proprie- 
tors.' The New York commissioners were Robert Walter 
and Isaac Hicks, with Allan Jarret as surveyor.- 

The commissioners proceeded to work promptly. John 
Harrison ot East Jersey was dispatched upon a preliminar\' 
trip from the Delaware to the Susquehanna and back again 
for the purpose of locating all the branches of the Delaware."' 
He was followed by the commissioners, and in due time a 
tripartite indenture was signed by Walker. Hicks, and Jar- 
ret for New York, by Johnstone and Willocks for East 
Jersey, by Joseph Kirkbridge and John Reading for West 
Jersey, and by James Alexander as surveyor-general for 
lioth Jerseys. This indenture solemnly declared the " so- 
called Fisk-Kill " to be the northernmost branch of the 
Delaware as well as the main branch, and located definitely 
the point 41° 40'.* But their other proceedings were not 
so happy. Jarret and Alexander next endeavored to fix the 
point 41'' on the Hudson. The result was. however, an 
annoying difference of opinion. According to Jarret's 
statement, their first observations made the point fall north- 
ward near Tappan Creek, but it soon appeared that the quad- 
rant was incorrect. Alexander pointed out a method for 

'Allinson, Statutes of Xe-w Jersey. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 382. ^Itnd.. vol. iv, p. 391. 

* Ibid., vol. iv. p. 353. The recognition of the Fisk-Kill as a branch 
of the Delaware within the meaning of the original grant was. of course, 
a great victory for New Jersey in the light of the later controversy. 
The later contention advanced by New York was that the northernmost 
point on the Delaware was in 41° 21', w^here the Fisk-Kill and the 
Mahackamack. now know^n as Neversink Creek, branch from the main 
stream. 



644 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



correcting the errors of the instrument, but this method 
Jarret would not accept. As no agreement could be reached, 
the New York surveyor laid the whole matter before the 
council at New York, declaring that nothing further could 
be done until an instrument of five or six foot radius could 
be obtained from England. He also repudiated the tripar- 
tite indenture, although he had previously signed it.^ The 
council at New York, considering " that Jarret was selected 
as the most able mathematician in the province," advised 
the governor to suspend all operations until the new quad- 
rant could be procured.' 

But numerous of the New Jersey proprietors, unwilling 
to surrender their advantage, drew up a memorial, present- 
ing an able argument in favor of Alexander's position. It 
quoted Alexander to the effect that Jarret had at the time 
not denied that the errors in the instrument could be recti- 
fied, that he had apparently not understood all the mathe- 
matical points concerned, and that he had been captious and 
tried to hinder." This memorial was presented to Lewis 
Morris, at the time acting as president of the council of 
New Jersey, and by him sent to the Lords of Trade with a 
letter in which he declared that the inhabitants on the border 
line were near bloodshed o\'er the quarrel. They agreed, he 
said, only in not paying taxes to either colony.'* 

The president of the New York council, Colonel Philip 
Schuyler, on the other hand, sent to the Lords a copy of 
Jarret's petition*^ and another from divers inhabitants of 
the province who' were concerned.^ This latter document 
offered objection to many features in the work of the com- 

' New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, pp. 403, 426. 
*Ibid., vol. iv, p. 406. ^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 408. 

*Ibid., vol. iv. pp. 441-3. ^Ibid., vol. iv. p. 431. 

*Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 433, 438. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 645 

mission, and among other things to the appointment as 
commissioners for East Jersey of Willocks and Johnstone 
who were concerned in a pecuniary way in the outcome. 

As New York refused to take further action, the matter 
rested for the time, since the home authorities, of course, 
took no immediate action. The further developments in 
the case fall beyond our period, but it may be well to add 
that eventually in 1767 a commission was named by the 
Crown to decide, and the line was run from the fork where 
the Delaware branches into the Fish-Kill and the Mahack- 
amack, in 41^ 21' 19", to the rock upon the Hudson first 
marked by Alexander and Jarret as 41°. Neither party 
gained its entire claim, though the interests of New Jersey 
were, of course, sacrificed to a far greater degree than those 
of New York by the giving-up of the point 41° 40'. Yet 
the line was accepted after much grumbling. It is interest- 
ing to notice that the point on the Fish-Kill fixed in the tri- 
partite indenture has been sustained as marking the end of 
the dividing line between East and West Jersey,^ and that 
the Fish-Kill itself is now commonly recognized as a part 
of the Delaware. 

In close logical connection with the settlement of the 
northern boundary was the question of the ownership of 
Staten Island. This island is, of course, geographically a 
part of New Jersey, and it was no doubt the intention of 
Charles II to convey it to Berkeley and Carteret. The gov- 
ernment at New York had, however, asserted its authority 
over the island from the beginning, maintaining that, since 
one arm of " Hudson's River " flowed around it, it was 
not conveyed to Carteret.- During the proprietary period 
there had been certain attempts to open the question, not- 

' Whitehead, Proceedings of the N. J. Hisi. Soc, vol. viii, p, 186. 
^Broadhead, Nezt> York, vol. ii, p. I49- 



646 THE PROVINCE OF XEIV JERSEY 

ably during the brief proprietorship of the Lady Elizabeth 
Carteret/ but nothing had been accomplished. After the 
surrender to the Crown, die irrepressible Sonmans and 
Dockwra presented a petition, in 1704, to the Lords of 
Trade urging the claims of New Jersey to Staten Island, - 
but there was apparently no result.^ There was, of course, 
the feeling that the Crown might resent any attempt to 
assert title to the Island as an attack upon its own power. 
The question was not reopened actively until after the union 
period, but it appears that uneasiness had at times been 
caused by ill-considered assenions of New Jersey's claims.* 

The almost complete triumph of the proprietors of Elast 
Jersey under Hunter was not, however, an unmixed bless- 
ing to the province, for we have the confidential assertion 
of James Alexander that some among them took advantage 
of their powers to carr\' through dishonorable speculations 
in land." This was generally done by misrepresenting the 
number of acres in surveys. -Alexander believed that John- 
stone and Willocks were especially guilty, saying that they 
held a tract of 30.000 acres on the north branch of the 
Raritan under the name of 3,150 acres. Alexander speaks 
also of patents for lands given in blank by ** the governor " 
to his friends so that they might fill in any amounts tliey 
wished. Which governor Alexander meant does not 
appear, but it was certainly one of tlie proprietary execu- 
tives, as no royal governor could grant such patents. * 

Just as Hunter left New Jersey a new movement was 

' A'irsr Jersey ArcJtiz-es. vol. i. pp. 349. 350. 353. 
^Ibid., vol. iii. p. 61. 

*Col. Quary asserted that the proprietors' " Long Bill " would have 
robbed the Crown of all Staten Island. Ibid., vol. iii. p. 17. 

* Ibid., vol. i. p. 4S4. ^ Ibid., vol. v, p. 57 ft seg. 

* Interesting confirmation of Alexander's statements appears in a letter 
of Charles Dunster; ibid., vol. v. p. 107. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UXDER ROYAL RULE 647 

developing among the proprietors to have themselves *' in- 
corporated " by an act of assembly. Alexander believed 
that the object was not merely to obtain greater efficiency 
in the handling of the proprietan,' aflfairs. but to arrange 
the terms of the incorporation in such a way as to give 
complete control to the Amboy clique. The prime movers 
in the scheme were, as usual, Johnstone and Willocks.* 

But just as Hunter had shown his statesmanship by com- 
mitting himself entirely to the proprietarj- party, so Burnet 
gave a high proof of his integrity and skill in taking up a 
more impartial attitude. His administration indeed opened 
by a sharp break between himself and certain of the pro- 
prietors. His violent and somewhat unseemly quarrel with 
the assembly which he had retained from Hunter's time is 
described elsewhere. But its underlying cause seems to 
ha\-e been the unwillingness of Burnet to become the tool 
of Johnstone and Willocks.' Burnet not only did not take 
kindly to the plan for incorporating the proprietors, but 
also resented bitterly the attempts of Willocks. who was 
not a representative, to interfere in the proceedings of the 
leo-islature.^ But though Johnstone and Willocks succeeded 
in causing the governor great vexation durmg the session 
of the assembly, they in the end defeated themselves, for 
neither they nor their methods were popular in the province, 
and when, upon dissolution, a new body of representatives 
was chosen, it was favorable to the governor.* Through- 
out the controversy Burnet had made much of the fact that 
Willocks was an avowed Jacobite. Whether this attitude 
was due to old-country prejudices, or whether it was merely 
a readv means of attack upon Willocks, is not certain. But 

> .W'u- Jersey- Archives, vol. v, p. 57- -Jbid., vol. v. p. 58. 

^Ibid.. vol. V. p. II. Wbid.. vol. v. p. 62. 



648 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

at any rate Burnet's second assembly was willing to pass 
an "Act for the Security of his Majesty's Government of 
New Jersey," which gave the governor or any appointed 
by him the power to administer the oaths of allegiance to 
any one suspected of disaffection. If the person refused 
he was to be prosecuted as a popish recusant, and was to 
suffer the penalties of the English law. It was made a high 
crime and misdemeanor for such a person to intermeddle in 
any way in public affairs.^ Willocks, now recognizing his 
defeat, like Coxe before him, fled from the province." 
Though he continued to intrigue from Philadelphia and 
Staten Island, his power was gone. Johnstone, whose oper- 
ations had been better cloaked, escaped disaster. 

It is interesting to notice that during the short conflict 
Johnstone and Willocks had not scrupled to- make overtures 
to leaders of the anti-proprietary party like the Hartshornes 
and Lawrences of Monmouth and Bonnell and Ogden of 
Elizabethtown.^ These persons for a time aided in the 
attack upon Burnet, but during the second meeting of the 
assembly broke from Willocks and supported the governor.'' 
They rightly calculated that they could gain more from 
Burnet than from the proprietors. Throughout, however, 
the abler men among the proprietors like Morris,^ Alexan- 
der, and John Hamiltoii had stood by the governor, sO' that 
the defeat of the partners did not involve the loss of the 
governor's favor for the entire proprietorship. 

The year 1725 marks a most important change in the 
work of the proprietorship, for during it the plan which 
had been for some time maturing to^ revive the council of 

^ Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 

'^ Nezv Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 107. 

•^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 61. ^Ibid.. vol. v, p. 62. 

•'Ibid., vol. V, p. 60. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 649 

proprietors was at length carried into effect. The first meet- 
ing of the council under the new arrangement was held on 
March 25 at New York City, and was attended by Lewis 
Morris, Charles Dunster, John Burnet, Richard Ashfield, 
and James Alexander, wdio among them held ninety-nine 
votes at eight votes to a property.' Thus only barely more 
than a majority interest was represented, but at the en- 
suing- meetings there was a much larger representation of 
proprietors. Among those attending the meetings down 
to 1730 were Samuel Leonard, Thomas Humphrey, David 
Lyell. Thomas Leonard, Daniel Hollingshead, Dr. John- 
stone. John Parker, Francis Elrington, Samuel Vaughan, 
George Lesly, Col. John Hamilton, John Barclay, and Fen- 
wick Lyell. In 1727 Michael Kearney became a member 
of the revived council in virtue of power given by the will 
of Charles Dunster. After the retirement of Governor 
Burnet, George Willocks also appeared. But the leaders 
during the early years certainly seem to have been Morris, 
Alexander, Hamilton, and Ashfield. 

In the first few meetings much time was given to per- 
fecting the organization of the council. In August, 1725, 
it was voted that thereafter one-fourth of a propriety was to 
have one vote; one-half, two votes; three-fourths, three 
votes; and one whole propriety, four votes. But the total 
votes to be given any one proprietor should not exceed 
tweh-e, and no one should act as a proxy but a proprietor 
or a proprietary agent. A quorum at a regular meeting was 
to consist of not less than ten persons, representing at least 
eight whole proprieties." In 1727, however, the quorum 
was cut to seven persons, though eight whole proprieties 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. i; 
Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 22. 
"^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A. p. 3. 



650 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

were still to be represented/ Two regular meetings of the 
council were held annually, but the times of holding them 
were several times altered, though one was usually held in 
the spring and one in the fall after the regular sessions of 
the supreme court.- Special meetings were also called 
when occasion required. Practically all the meetings took 
place at Perth Amboy. 

It was voted to choose a president annually,^ but the 
commanding influence of Morris designated him as the 
natural leader, and he held the presidency of the council of 
proprietors continuously until August, 1730. All other offi- 
cers were to hold their places during good behavior or till 
displaced by a two-thirds vote of all the proprietors.* 
James Alexander was continued as surveyor-general un- 
der the authority of the council and James Smith as 
register, though the duties of the latter were regularly 
performed by his deputy, Michael Kearney. But almost 
immediately after the revival of the council Alexander 
resigned as receiver-general of quit-rents, and Richard Ash- 
field was chosen.'^ The latter was designated as treasurer 
also, and he was to have ten per cent of all sums col- 
lected, as well as reasonable traveling expenses.* Rangers 
were named by the council for the several counties. But 
the board made especial haste in engaging the services of 
able legal counsel, James Alexander, Joseph Murray, and 
John Kinsey, Jr.' The connection of the latter with the 
proprietors was not, however, permanent, as his natural in- 
stincts led him to identify himself with more popular in- 
terests. 

The effect of the re-establishment upon these lines of the 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 18. 
"- Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 22. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 3. 
'^Ibid., p. 3. ^Ibid., p. 4. ^Ibid., p. 5. ''Ibid., p. i. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 651 

council of East Jersey proprietors was, of course, to give 
a greatly increased unity and energy to the proprietor- 
ship. It is true, however, that even after the reorganiza- 
tion of the council a degree of carelessness and laxity still 
prevailed which would be almost unimaginable in the conduct 
of a modern business enterprise. Such increase of strength 
as was obtained came, nevertheless, at the right time, for the 
proprietorship was soon compelled to face circumstances 
almost as trying as those of " the Revolution " of 1699. 
The most difficult questions with which the council had to 
struggle were those connected with the settlement of the 
boundary dispute with West Jersey, and the reopening in a 
very serious form of the Elizabethtown controversy. So 
important, indeed, are these matters that they must be re- 
served for a separate consideration. Before taking them 
up let us study briefly the other work accomplished b> 
the council. 

In the political field the council did not accomplish ven,- 
great results. At its first meeting in 1725 the president of 
the council was ordered to frame one or more bills to la}- 
before the general assembly for effectually settling the pro- 
prietary rights.^ Rut the assemblies under Burnet proved 
unwilling to take any decided action on behalf of the pro- 
prietorship, and it does not appear that such a measure was 
actually introduced. On the other hand, the assembly of 
1727 was eager to secure the passage of measures to reg- 
ulate in a manner more convenient to the inhabitants the 
recording of land titles and deeds. As a result an "Act 
concerning the Acknowledging and Registering of Deeds 
and Conveyances of Land " " was passed, which provided 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. i. 
^Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. This law was virtually a re-enact- 
ment of a previous measure which had been disallowed by the Crown in 



6^2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

for the recording of deeds and conveyances in the respective 
counties by the county clerks and made it no longer neces- 
sary that they should be recorded by the provincial secre- 
tary alone at Burlington or Amboy. The house also made 
an efifort to carry a bill for prescribing the time for record- 
ing surveys/ and another "for preventing the trouble and 
expense relating to the enrollment of deeds and conveyances 
of land." ^ But the council, which of course contained 
Morris and other leading proprietors, insisted that the latter 
bill should be amended so that all deeds of proprietors 
should be recorded only at the register's office, as, if they 
were recorded at any other place, it wonkl be difficult to 
tell what share of each propriety was laid out, and thus 
" the door would be opened for frauds." But the house 
held that such a provision in the law was unnecessary, as 
the council of proprietors might make any rules it deemed 
necessary for proprietors, and as things then stood it 
was not necessary that deeds should be recorded anywhere.'' 
After a lengthy and rather acrimonious discussion both 
measures failed. 

The council of proprietors early considered the matter of 
the quit-rents, which, as usual, seem to have been in arrears. 
In October, 1725, the receiver-general was directed to apply 
himself to their collection with all diligence,* and in the 
next year, upon his own request, he was given an assistant. 
At that time Ashfleld submitted an account of the cash 
in hand for the use of the proprietors, which proved 

1721. It was also disallowed upon the plea of James Smith although at 
the time it was passed he made entry upon the council journal that he 
was satisfied to receive ^25 per annum in lieu of the fees which were 
reduced. New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 386; vol. v. p. 198. 

^ Assembly Journal, Feb. 2, 1727-8. 

'^ Ibid., Jan. 11, 1727-8. '^ Ibid., Feb. 6, 10, 1727-8. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 7. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 653 

to be £401, 1 6s, 3d/ It is impossible to tell, how- 
ever, just what part of the rents or for how long a time 
this sum represented. To aid Ashfield in his work the pro- 
prietors drew up an address to Burnet praying him to issue 
a proclamation in his favor as the legitimate collector of 
quit-rents, just as Cornbury had done first for Barclay and 
then for Sonmans.- Such action had, indeed, been rendered 
necessary by the return of Sonmans to the province and 
the active renewal of his pretensions. With the request of 
the council Burnet complied, and the proclamation was 
issued in due form." The proprietors then drew up an ad- 
dress of acknowledgment, which Morris at once read to the 
governor in person, and which he received kindly. The ad- 
dress stated that the proprietors had always understood that 
they had surrendered the government to the Crown on con- 
dition that their civil rights be protected.* 

During their sessions applications were made to the board 
by divers persons for warrants of survey upon proprietary 
claims under the several dividends of land already voted. 
These were examined carefully, and several warrants were 
given. But since the council was obliged to consume much 
time in examining intO' the validity of such claims, it was 
eventually voted, in 1737, that all applications be made to 
the register and that he make the proper searches. Every 
month those members of the board who lived near Amboy 
were to meet, and any three with the register were to be a 
committee to make further examinations of the claims and 
report the same to the council. '^ 

From the very necessity of their position the council was 

^ Mifiutes of the Cotmcil of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 11. 

^Ibid., p. 16. ''Ibid., p. 8. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 126. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 52. 



654 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

soon involved in legal proceedings. The earliest actions 
authorized were against the holders of tracts which had 
been granted by Peter Sonmans during his usurped director- 
ship of proprietary affairs under Cornbury. Suits in chan- 
cery were ordered begun, as early as 1725, against May 
Bickley and his partners in the Essex tract called New 
Britain, and against Peter Fauconnier and his associates in 
the Ramapo tract in Bergen County, already mentioned/ 
But these very troublesome cases dragged on without any 
very definite result." In consequence the board, in 1728, 
endeavored to engage Andrew Hamilton, the celebrated 
" Philadelphia lawyer," as general counsel for the propri- 
etors. But Hamilton refused a general retaining fee, though 
he agreed to act in separate cases if he approved of them. 
The board voted to submit to him the state of the Ramapo 
and New Britain cases. ^ But though the suits continued to 
occupy the attention of the board, the proprietors did not 
succeed during the union period in obtaining decisions defi- 
nitely making void Sonmans' grants. 

The council also began, in 1726, another fruitless proceed- 
ing in chancery against Sonmans to compel him to give an 
account of the quit-rents he had collected.* But that bold 
adventurer upon his return to the province not only defied 
the council, but, as has been elsewhere shown, ventured to 
exercise his commission as receiver-general of quit-rents 
given by Dockwra and the "English Proprietors" in Corn- 
bury's time.'* His authority was recognized by the corpor- 
ation of Bergen, and the legitimate proprietors were in con- 

^ Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 70. 
The rights of the proprietors of West Jersey were also involved in the 
New Britain Case. 

"Ibid., pp. 18, 19. ^Ibid., p. 23. ^Ibid., p. 11. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 309. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 655 

sequence defrauded of considerable sums.^ For this conduct 
Sonmans was prosecuted by the attorney-general of the prov- 
ince upon information for fraud. ■ But, though it was no 
doubt the inHuence of the proprietors which led to his 
prosecution, the case was not conducted by them directly. 
Sonmans, though hard pushed, escaped direct condemnation 
and continued to make trouble for his opponents, though 
not so openly as before. 

When Burnet was, in 1728. succeeded by Montgomerie 
the council of proprietors naturally desired to establish re- 
lations with the new governor as cordial as those 
which had existed with Burnet. They therefore drew and 
presented an address of congratulation to Montgomerie 
upon his safe arrival.^ Morris, who prepared the address, 
again put in a clause stating that the proprietors had sur- 
rendered on condition that their private rights be guaran- 
teed. In the next year the board petitioned the new gov- 
ernor for a proclamation in favor of Ashfield as receiver- 
general of quit-rents, citing the precedent of Burnet.* But 
Montgomerie was not in power long enough to develop any 
decided policy toward the proprietorship, if, indeed, he was 
capable of doing so. 

In 1730 the activity of the council of proprietors was 
rather abruptly interrupted by the withdrawal of Lewis 
Morris, its president, who last attended a meeting in August 
of that year."' Col. John Hamilton succeeded him first as 
vice-president and then as president. At about the same 
time Morris succeeded to the administration of the Jerseys 
as president of the royal council, and began his canvass to 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, pp. 31 1-2, 314-6. 

* Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 317. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 20. 

"Ibid., p. 30. ''Ibid., p. zz. 



656 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



obtain the governorship itself. These circumstances per- 
haps account for his rather sudden retirement from the 
proprietary concerns, for at about the same time he surren- 
dered his position as agent of the West Jersey Society, a 
post which had undoubtedly added much to his power and 
influence. In his place the Society named Joseph Murray. 
Jeremiah Lattouch, and Joseph Haynes as agents in East 
Jersey.^ The result of Morris's withdrawal seems good 
proof that he had been the chief directing force in the pro- 
prietary affairs. From 1725 to 1730 the council had met 
regularly, and although there had been in some instances 
carelessness in executing its decisions, its business had been 
transacted in a fairly systematic way. 

But after the retirement of Morris there was a sliarp 
change. It is true that one or two important matters were 
transacted during the next few meetings. In October, 1730, 
the great step was taken of declaring a new dividend of the 
unoccupied land. This dividend was to be of two thousand 
acres to a propriety, and so in proportion.- It was to be 
made three years after date, and public advertisement 
was to be put in English papers and in the New York 
Gazette so that all proprietors might have due notice and 
provide for their interests. The movement to obtain in- 
corporation for the proprietors was also revived.^ But 
after the meeting of July, 1731, a strange period of chaos 
occurs, and no further meeting of the council is recorded 
until December, 1735. During this interval the proprietary 
concerns suffered from neglect, yet it seems to have been 
only the urgent necessity arising out of the Elizabethtown 
question which brought the council again together. Mean- 
while had taken place the violent quarrel between the new 

"^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A. p. 42. 
*Ibid., p. 35. ^Ibid., p. 36. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 



657 



f 



governor, Cosby, and Morris and Alexander, which for the 
time completely destroyed the influence of the latter gentle- 
men in public affairs. Cosby, however, remained on excel- 
lent terms with Col. Hamilton and with the majority of the 
proprietors, whose later opposition to Morris was perhaps 
not entirely unconnected with his sudden abandonment of 
their mutual affairs. 

Two circumstances make clear the neglect suffered by 
the proprietary concerns during the suspension of the coun- 
cil. In 1735 it appeared that Ashfield, owing to the ob- 
structions of Sonmans, had for several years been able to 
collect no quit-rents. The revived council endeavored to 
remedy this loss by applying to Cosby for a new proclama- 
tion in favor of their receiver-general.^ But more discred- 
itable was the fact that in ij;i,j it was found that nothing 
whatsoever had been done either toward advertising the 
dividend of land voted in 1731 or toward executing it." It 
was now ordered that the dividend be made in two years, 
and that thereafter there be yearly dividends until the whole 
of the land was apportioned. Murray and Alexander were 
made a committee to see that the required advertisements 
were duly published.'' At the next meeting, in August, 
1737, entry was made upon the minutes of the public notice 
of the dividend. All proprietors were to see that their 
agents were on hand to locate their lands. Otherwise they 
were to be themselves to blame if they got poor land.* 

But, after all, the two subjects which had from the be- 
ginning required the closest attention from the council 
were the running of the boundary line between East 
and West Jersey, and the Elizabethtown question. In 
October. 1725 the council of East Jersey named a com- 

' Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 40. 
^Ibid., p. 49. "-Ibid. ''Ibid., p. 51. 



658 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

mittee to consult with the proprietors of West Jersey 
with a view to securing their co-operation against the 
New Britain claimants. The same committee was also 
to concert measures for the running of the division line al- 
ready authorized by act of assembly/ But four months 
later nothing had been accomplished, and the council in- 
structed Col. Hamilton to write a letter to James Logan, of 
West Jersey, regarding the necessity of running the line.- 
As no result was thus gained the council, in May, 1727, 
voted that application be made to Governor Burnet to ap- 
point two commissioners for running the line, since Lyell 
and Harrison, named for East Jersey in the act of 1 718-19. 
were dead. Parker and Ashfield were suggested.* But the 
retirement of Burnet prevented action. 

Meanwhile the influence of the Coxes had been exerted 
with the home authorities to secure the disallowance of the 
act for running the dividing line which, like so many other 
provincial acts, had been suffered to stand without formal 
approval. Therefore, in 1728, the council voted to employ 
an agent in England to solicit the passing of the measure. 
Morris, Alexander, and Ashfield were a committee to 
employ a fit agent and to correspond with him. £50 
were voted from which were to be supplied such sums as 
the agent would need.* The committee promptly wrote 
to Peter La Heupe, who had been for a short time the agent 
of the assembly, asking him to undertake the work.^ He 
was informed that the great majority of the West Jersey 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 8. 

"^ Ibid., p. 14. 

^ Ibid., p. 17. In the session of the assembly of 1727-8 John Kinsey 
brought in a bill for limiting the time in which the partition line was to 
be run. But though it passed the house it did not become law. 

^Ibid., p. 22. ^Ibid., p. 24. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 659 

proprietors approved of the division and that it was op- 
posed only by Coxe and a few persons who held small inter- 
ests. There might be some opposition from Partridge, the 
regular provincial agent, yet as he had no instructions from 
any part of the legislature he ought not to act. La Heupe 
was also furnished with a list of " considerable persons " 
in London who held interests in the Jerseys and who might 
give assistance. Charles Dominique was designated as head 
of their afifairs, but the list also included Robert Mitchell, 
John Bridges, Levi Ball, and others.^ La Heupe accepted 
the position, but wrote that there had been as yet no opposi- 
tion to the act. A second letter said that he had a favor- 
able report from the Lords of Trade upon the measure." 

In August, 1730, a letter was received from the West 
Jersey proprietors proposing an accommodation about the 
division line.' But at the next meeting the council voted 
that the West Jersey proprietors have timely notice regard- 
ing the line, and that if they did not agree East Jersey 
would run it separately.'' Four thousand acres of land 
were to be disposed of to cover the expense. But decisive 
action was again hindered, first by the temporary suspension 
of the council which followed the retirement of Morris, and 
then by the threatening character of the Elizabethtown dis- 
pute. So dangerous did the latter afTair indeed become that 
the council was obliged to seek the aid of the West Jersey 
proprietorship. It could not afford therefore to offend its 
possible allies. In March, 1738, Col. Coxe was himself 
present at a meeting and requested from the council of 
West Jersey that a committee be named to see about the 

' Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 24. 

^Ibid., p. 25. The act was confirmed by the Crown in 1729; New 
Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 451. 

■•Minutes of the Council of Ptoprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 33. 

^ Ibid., p. 34. 



66o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

dividing line. Murray, now vice-president, of the East 
Jersey council, Alexander, and Lyell were named, but as 
usual nothing decisive resulted.^ The negotiations dragged 
on beyond the union period until 1743, when the proprie- 
tors of East Jersey finally had the line run independently by 
John Lawrence. Later attempts to annul this survey failed, 
and the Lawrence line has remained since that time as the 
boundary between the eastern and the western division. 

When the council was re-established in 1725, there seemed 
good reason for believing that the Elizabethtown question 
was at least on the way toward final settlement. The fav- 
orable decision in the case of Vaughan vs. Woodruff had 
in a sense established the claims of the proprietors, and the 
subsequent conduct of at least a part of the inhabitants of 
Elizabethtown in obtaining proprietary titles seemed a 
further recognition. Under the circumstances it seemed 
both possible and desirable for the proprietors to come to a 
definite understanding with the town. Accordingly, in 
October, 1725, the council named a committee to treat with 
the Elizabethtown people, that " the affair " might be com- 
promised in the most amicable manner. This committee 
consisted of Morris, Hamilton. Ashfield, and Alexander, the 
ablest members of the council.- But four months later the 
committee had apparently done nothing, and Alexander was 
directed to write to Joseph Bonnell as the representative of 
the town, stating that the committee was prepared to re- 
ceive any proposals by letter or to arrange a meeting.^ The 
letter was duly sent; and, in July, 1726, it was voted that 
at the next meeting the council would take up the Elizabeth- 
town question.* Mr. Bonnell was acquainted, and told that 

^Minutes of Ihe Council of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, p. 55- 
"^Ibid., p. 7. ^Ibid., p. 14. ^Ibid., p. 15. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 66 1 

the object of the council was to estabh'sh good feeling be- 
tween the proprietors and all the inhabitants. But as an il- 
lustration of the strange negligence which is such an un- 
accountable characteristic of the management of the pro- 
prietary concerns, we find that at the next session the 
Elizabethtown question was not considered at all, nor is it 
again referred to in the proprietary minutes until the re- 
newal of the council in 1735. 

But instead of being dropped, the dispute was actually 
about to enter a new and acute stage. Because of the re- 
luctance of the Elizabethtown people to come to an under- 
standing which would involve a surrender of their claims 
under the Nicolls grant, the legal advisors of the proprietors 
evidently concluded to push proceedings against them in the 
courts. Accordingly in 1731 sundry ejectment suits were 
brought in the interest of the proprietorship at the suit of 
Patrick Lithgow on the demise of Peter Schuyler, as as- 
signee of Philip Carteret to recover lands surveyed for Sir 
George and Philip Carteret and granted by patent April 
24, 1682. This tract was now held by John Robison, Henry 
Clarke, Andrew Craig, Joshua Marsh, and others under the 
Clinker Lot survey.^ 

There is every indication that both parties thoroughly 
understood the importance of the issue, and were ready to 
meet it, for the cases came to trial on May 17 and 18, 1733.^ 
The chief justice, R. L. Hooper, presided, and the jury, 
drawn from Middlesex, was selected with every precaution. 
The case of Lithgow vs. Robinson was taken up first as the 
test case. Both parties were represented by the ablest coun- 
sel available; the proprietors by Murray and Alexander, 
later the authors of the Bill in Chancery: and the Eliza- 

^ Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 47. 

* Supreme Court Docket (Perth Amboy, 1732-1738), pp. 173-178. 



662 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

bethtown people by John Kinsey, the pohticiaii and 
speaker of the assembly, and Richard Smith of New York. 
The weighty aspect of the case is proved by the fact that 
the hearing- was continued "at above Nineteen Hours." 
The chief justice summed up the evidence " at five of the 
clock in the morning." But although the proprietors had 
been confident of success, the jury next day found for the 
defendant, and a victory had been achieved for Elizabeth- 
town comparable only to that won by Jeffry Jones. After 
the decision for Robinson the plaintiff defaulted in the 
other cases, and was non-suited. The Bill in Chancery 
maintains that the somewhat astonishing verdict against 
Lithgow was due wholly to the defect of the lessor of the 
plaintiff's title, and was not based upon the Nicolls grant. ^ 
But this is strongly denied by the Answer to the Bill,^ and 
there is nothing in the records of the court to show that 
such was the case. It was certainly the popular impression 
that the Elizabethtown claimants had been upheld. 

The effect of the decision in the Schuyler case was very 
similar to that of the decision of Jones vs. Fullerton in 
1697. for it gave renewed hope and determination to the 
Elizabethtown claimants who, since the case of Vaughan 
vs. Woodruff, liad been on the defensive. In August, 1720, 
after that defeat, the freeholders of Elizabethtown had 
chosen a committee of seven to represent them in all mat- 
ters touching their claims.^ The members appear to have 
served at the pleasure of the town. Among those origin- 
ally chosen were John Blanchard, Capt. Joseph Bonnell. and 
John Crane, while Benjamin Bond, Joseph Woodruff, and 
John Harriman became members later. This was evidently 

^Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 47. 
'^Answer to the Elizabethtmvn Bill in Chancery. 
^Hatfield, History of Klizabeth , p. 310. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 663 

the body with which the council of proprietors had vainly 
tried to negotiate. In 1732 the membership of the com- 
mittee was almost completely changed, though it still in- 
cluded John Crane and Joseph Bonnell.' 

But after the victory in the Schuyler case more energetic 
action was in order. The first step of the associates was to 
select a committee of three trustees : Nathaniel Huttell, 
John Crane, and Joseph Shotwell, and to enter into bond to 
pay to the said trustees such sums, (not exceeding £10 pro- 
clamation money for each person), as should be duly assessed 
by the trustees toward defraying the charges of tnaintain- 
ing the Elizabethtown title, according to the judgment and 
discretion of the committee of seven. ^ It was further agreed, 
in July, 1734, to dispose of a considerable tract of land to 
pay the expenses of litigation." The associates, also, made 
efforts to win over the tenants who were actually in pos- 
session of proprietary lands within the disputed area. As 
an inducement they offered to sell to such tenants the lands 
which they held at £5 per hundred acres, and to guarantee 
the defense of the new titles to the extent of the common 
fund. These offers were in certain cases at least, accepted.* 

The associates next, just as in 1699, took steps for the 
survey and apportionment of the outlying portions of the 
land which according to their claims lay within the limits of 
the Nicolls grant, and which had not been divided among 
themselves in the Clinker Lot survey. At a town meeting in 
March, 1734-5 the seven trustees were authorized to lay out 
the common land of the town lying "back of the first moun- 
tain," to divide the same into one hundred acre lots, and to 
make them over to the associates by lot.* After further 

'Hatfield. History of Elizabeth, p. 313. 

^Ibid., p. 314. '■''Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, pp. 47-48. 

* Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 315. 



664 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

legal proceedings had been begun by the proprietors, how- 
ever, it was voted at a town meeting in September, 1735 that 
a large tract be disposed of to meet the resulting charges/ 
This was " a certain tract or parcell of land lying west from 
a place known by the name of Baskine Ridge and between 
the West Jersey line not to exceed eight miles upon the 
east and west line, and to extend to our utmost bounds upon 
the north and south lines." This land was to be sold for 
not less than £2000, and the associates reserved the right to 
retain one-third part for their own use if required. 

A considerable tract of land still lay unappropriated 
west of the surveys of 1699- 1700. But in November, 1736 
steps were taken to apportion this also.^ At a town meeting 
Joseph Morse was elected and qualified as town surveyor, 
and the work duly assigned to him and the committee of 
seven. The whole of the district involved was regularly 
surveyed into 280 one-hundred-acre lots, the work being 
accomplished by Morse and William Courson of Staten 
Island, acting with various assistants chosen by the town. 
In March, 1738, report was duly made to the town meeting, 
and arrangements were made for the assignment of the new 
tracts by lot among the associates and those who had pur- 
chased of them according to the original arrangement of 
first, second, and third lot rights.^ It was claimed by the 
proprietors in the Bill in Chancery that the surveys of Morse 
and Courson were made by stealth and at night,* but this 
accusation is just as strongly denied by the associates. 

The proprietors, as we have seen, were suddenly con- 
fronted by such aggressions at a time when their council 
was suspended. But the blows struck at their claims led to 
its second revival, for in December, 1735, a general meeting of 

'Hatfield. History of Elizabeth, p. 315. 'Ibid., p, 316. 

^ Ibid., p. 3x7. '' Elizabethtoivn Bill in Chancery, p. 49. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 665 

the proprietors was called by Col. Hamilton, though appar- 
ently at the instance of Alexander, to consider the astonish- 
ing- proceedings of Elizabethtown.^ The proprietors, how- 
ever, had difficulty in learning what actions the associates 
had really taken. It was nevertheless voted to bring the 
Elizabethtown affair to an end by suits, and it was resolved 
that, as a fund for that purpose, each land owner in the 
province contribute five shillings for every one hundred 
acres." The proprietors of West Jersey were also ad- 
dressed to bear some part of the charge. But no positive 
step could be taken until one John Vail, a proprietary sup- 
porter, should report to the board exactly what Elizabeth- 
town had done."^ 

In April, 1737, Vail reported fully to the council the pro- 
ceedings of the town surveyors and committee.* The south 
bound of the Elizabethtown claim had been run from the 
mouth of Robinson's branch on Rahway River west until it 
crossed the north branch of the Raritan, about five chains. 
Later the town surveyors had begun to run their north bound 
at the mouth of the Passaic, and had carried it west twenty- 
one miles. The proprietary council promptly resolved that 
six ejectment suits be begun in Somerset County " to try the 
Elizabethtown pretense." Fenwick Lyell was put in charge 
of the suits, and a subscription was raised by the proprietors 
present to cover his expenses until reimbursement could be 
made from the proprietary funds.** To reward Vail for 
his information he was excused from his contribution of 
five shillings for every one hundred acres. 

At the next council, of August, 1737, Lyell was obliged 
to report that he had not been able to begin his suits, as he 

^Minutes of the Coimcil of Proprietors of East Jersey, bk. A, pp. 
38-39. 

''Ibid., p. 41. ^ Ibid., pp. 40-4 r. 

* Ibid., p. 43. '"Ibid., p. 44- 



666 THE PROnXCE OF XEW JERSEY 

had found no evidence that Elizabethtown people had tres- 
passed, except that John Crane in running the line had 
marked several trees on lands of Stephen Vail.^ Lyell was 
ordered to secure further evidence and to prosecute Crane 
if he was able.- But meanwhile the associates themselves 
brought an action against John Vail on the demise of one 
Joseph Halsey. Since Vail held under the proprietors Lyell 
prompt!}' undertook his case. The council approved and 
directed Alexander and Murray to assist.* At the same 
meeting, in March, 1738, the proprietary counsel received 
power of attorney from one Daniel Cooper to bring action 
for trespass against certain persons, said to be of Eliza- 
bethtown, who had done injury to his land. The board 
gave security to Cooper that he should be saved harmless 
from the suit and indemnilied and ordered Alexander and 
his colleague to bring suit according to the statement of- 
fered by one John Airs of Basking Ridge, who declared 
that Joseph Morse, the sur\-eyor. John Crane, and others 
acting for Elizabethtown had crossed Cooper's land and 
gone through his green wheat. ^ Actions for trespass 
against Morse. Crane, and four others concerned were ac- 
cordingly begun. 

To the pending cases of Jackson zx Vail and Cooper vs. 
Morse ci al. another must also be added. It appears that in 
1736 several servants of the Penns had been won over 
by the Clinker Lot claimants. Accordingly the proprie- 
tors began several ejectment suits in the name of James 
Fenn against these tenants. In one of them John Cham- 
bers was defendant, and in another, one Alcorn. The Penn 
tract involved covered 7.500 acres.* Other actions also 

^Minnies of the Council of Proprietors of East Jnsty, bk. A, p. .jS. 
^Ibid.. p. 4C. ^IHii.. p. 54- 

* Elizabeihiou-,: Bit! in Chaficcry. p. 48. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP LXDER ROYAL RULE 66/ 

followed, one of which concerned 9000 acres in West 
Jersey owned by James Logan/ Logan's tenants, like those 
of Penn. had been won over by the Elizabethtown com- 
mittee. 

While these great questions were still pending, the union 
period came to an end. Eventually the proprietors won 
verdicts in the cases of Cooper and of Fenn, but in the Vail 
case they met reverse.'^ The further ejectment proceed- 
ings and the riotous disturbances to which they led must 
unfortunately not be considered here. Nor can the cele- 
brated chancery proceedings, intended by the proprietors to 
make a definite ending of the entire controversy, be touched 
upon. The great chancery suit had at least the result of 
giving to the historian Alexander's able Bill in Clmncery 
and the Ans7i'cr of the Associates, but the eventual suspen- 
sion of the proceedings left the cause without other issue 
than the failure of the proprietors to establish their rights 
during the colonial period. 

^Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 51. 
■Ibid., pp. 48, 49. 50. 



CHAPTER XXVIII 

The Proprietorship under Royal Rule 

west jersey 

A STUDY of the proprietorship of West Jersey does not 
disclose such a savage clashing of interests as took place 
in the affairs of the proprietors of East Jersey. Neverthe- 
less the management of the proprietary concerns in the west- 
ern division was to a considerable degree determined by the 
changing relations of three dominating interests. The first 
of these was commonly called " the Quaker interest." By 
this term was meant the party among the proprietors resi- 
dent in the province which had been acting chiefly under the 
lead of Samuel Jennings and of Thomas Gardiner, the 
Second. It included a large part of the share-holders in 
Burlington and Gloucester counties and was made up of 
Friends and persons in sympathy with them. The student 
is in almost unavoidable danger of confusing this numerous 
element with the entire proprietorship. But there was a 
second very active interest headed by Col. Daniel Coxe. 
Coxe himself held the third largest single interest in West 
Jersey, and in his operations was supported by a follow- 
ing of smaller share owners, chiefly persons opposed to 
Quaker domination. Thirdly there was the large proprie- 
tary interest of the influential West Jersey Society. This 
company during the royal period included among its mem- 
bers such powerful persons as Paul Dominique, Edward 
Richier, John Bridges, Robert Michel, and Thomas Lane. 
But it was handicapped by the fact that it was made up of 
668 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 



669 



persons resident in England. It had, however, been rep- 
resented in the Jerseys by Governor Andrew Hamilton as 
agent and, after his death in 1702, was to have the advan- 
tage of the services of Lewis Morris in the same capacity. 
These three interests, though not usually hostile to the same 
degree as the factions of the East Jersey proprietorship, 
were to some extent opposed. There usually existed a 
cooperation of two of them against the other. 

When the period of proprietary government came to an 
end in West Jersey the management of the land system 
lay, of course, in the hands of the council of proprietors, 
and this body retained its position under the royal rule. Its 
nine members continued to be chosen at annual meetings of 
the proprietors held at Burlington and Gloucester,* and to 
select their own officers, — a president, vice-president, clerk, 
and surveyor.' But under the royal government the coun- 
cil naturally carried its functions somewhat further than 
it had done previously. Separate commissioners for the 
several counties to pass upon land claims presented and to 
order surveys thereon ceased to be appointed, and instead 
the council required that all claims for land should be sub- 
mitted to it directly and that the surveyor should act only 
upon warrant issued by its own direct authority. It there- 
fore followed that its meetings were taken up in great part 
in considering cla'ms entered for land upon proprietary 
shares and in authorizing surveys.^ Such work required 
frequent and rather lengthy meetings. In 1717 it was 
voted that the council meet regularly on the second Tuesday 
of May, August, November, and February.* But special 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 223. 
' It also regularly named rangers for the several counties. 
^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, passim. 
*Ibid., bk. 3, p. 177. 



670 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

meetings took place on call by the president. The council 
nearly always met at Burlington. While it cannot be said 
that its proceedings were absolutely free from the con- 
fusion and carelessness which mark so many eighteenth cen- 
tury enterprises, its records show that upon the whole the 
council conducted its work in a painstaking and business- 
like way. Especially when compared with the slipshod 
proceedings of the East Jersey proprietorship its work 
seems creditable in a high degree. 

During the closing years of the proprietary period the 
council under the presidency of Governor Hamilton, the 
agent of the West Jersey Society, had been taking steps with 
a view to an extensive Indian purchase above the Falls of 
the Delaware from which a third dividend on proprietary 
shares might be made.^ But the death of Hamilton and the 
confusion incident to the overthrow of the proprietary gov- 
ernment caused delay. The council, however, continued 
to carry on its plans under the presidencies of Mahlon 
Stacy, John Wills, and William Biddle.- By June. 1703. 
two large tracts, estimated at 150,000 acres, had been pur- 
chased at a cost of about £700, but the council was 
intent upon obtaining additional lands from the Indians 
so as to allow a dividend of 5000 acres to a propriety. It 
was voted by the council, therefore, to give public notice 
to the proprietors in England and elsewhere of their de- 
signs. All proprietors who would bear their share of the 
purchase, which would be about £24 to a propriety, 
were to receive their rights in the new tracts. But 
if the absent proprietors neglected to cooperate through 
their agents the proprietors resident in the province were 
determined to make the purchases independently.^ A gen- 

' Mimttes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. i, pp. 87, I03. 
^ Ibid., bk. ii, loose pages. ^Ibid., bk. ii, p. i. f among loose pages). 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 67 1 

eral meeting of all proprietors interested was announced 
for July 19th, next, at Burlington. 

During the ensuing meetings the council considered the 
reports of the agents who had negotiated with the Indians 
and took steps to pay to the natives what was wanting in 
the purchase money. ^ But it is evident that the death of 
Hamilton ha^l destroyed the understanding between the 
*' Quaker Interest," represented in the council by such men 
as Jennings. Biddle. Deacon. Wills. Hall, Wetherill, and 
Kay, and the West Jersey Society. In April, 1704. Paul 
Dominique, John Bridges, and Robert Michel presented a 
memorial to the Lords of Trade asking that the persons 
'' calling themselves the Council of Proprietors residing in 
Jersey " be restrained by the royal governor from purchas- 
ing and taking up lands without the knowledge or consent 
of the proprietors in England.' 

But certainly the chief danger to the Quaker interest 
did not come from the West Jersey Society. Lord Corn- 
bury had from the first displayed his hostility to the 
Frientls. The royal council already contained Thomas 
Revell and Daniel Leeds, two leaders of the " Basse faction " 
in West Jersey, and in 1706, Col. Daniel Coxe himself was 
appointed and at once became a prominent force in the ad- 
ministration.'* The death of Deacon, and the resignation 
of Jennings left the executive department of the province 
almost completely under the influence of men opposed to 
Quaker control in any form, and the political clash de- 
scribed at such length in former chapters between Corn- 
bury's administration and the proprietary party of both 
Jerseys was becoming ever more bitter. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. ii, pp. 
19. 23 (among loose pages). 
"- New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 50. '■lb-id., vol. iii, p. 125. 



672 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Therefore, in November, 1706, Cornbury caused a sum- 
mons to be issued to " those that Call themselves the Coun- 
cil of Propriet'rs of ye Western Devission " to attend upon 
him in council at Burlington to show by what authority they 
pretended to act as a council. In the meanwhile they were 
ordered to forbear laying out lands or making purchases 
from the Indians without first obtaining the governor's 
license as required by the recent act for regulating the pur- 
chasing of lands from the " Indeans." ^ This order was 
considered by the council of proprietors, but no action was 
taken as the time was thought too brief.^ As a result the 
council was forthwith suspended by the governor. Under 
date of May 30, 1707, the members of the council presented 
a statement to Cornbury describing the origin, constitution, 
and legal authority of their body.'* But their action, of 
course, caused no change in his Lordship's attitude. 

The conduct of Cornbury toward the West Jersey pro- 
prietorship, just as his interference with the affairs of the 
owners of East Jersey, became therefore one of the im- 
portant political questions before the province. In the 
great remonstrance of 1707 the suspension of the West 
Jersey council was formally stated as a case of oppression.'* 
In his answer to the remonstrance Cornbury declared in 
justification of his conduct that, as he was commanded by 
his instructions to allow only such proprietary agents to 
act as had qualified themselves by taking the proper oaths, 
and as the so-called council had never presented themselves 

^ New Jersey Archu'es, vol. iii, p. 158. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. ii, p. 21 
(loose leaves). 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 220. 

*Ibid., vol. iii, p. 178. It will be remembered that Jennings was 
speaker of the assembly and read the remonstrance to Cornbury. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 



673 



to take the oaths, he was only carrying- out his duty in 
prohibiting them from acting. Moreover they were people 
pretending to act upon powers derived from those who had 
no power to grant. ^ But in their reply to Cornbury's an- 
swer to their remonstrance the assembly showed clearly the 
weakness of his contentions. It set forth that, as the gov- 
ernor had not published his instructions, proprietary agents 
could not be expected to present themselves to meet qualifica- 
tions of which they knew nothing. Cornbury had more- 
over never required the council of proprietors to take the 
oaths. But in any case the said council were not agents 
within the meaning of the royal instructions." No one 
concerned seems to have been in the least deceived as to the 
governor's real motives. 

But the misfortunes of the " Quaker interest " brought 
them at least one good result. Lewis Morris, now the agent 
of the West Jersey Society, was of course the most promi- 
nent leader of the opposition to Cornbury. Moreover the 
interests of that powerful company in both Jerseys were 
equally endangered by the arbitrary proceedings of Corn- 
bury. As a result the Society drew up two petitions to the 
Lords of Trade, exposing the political abuses of the ad- 
ministration.^ Though these memorials naturally did not 
mention the suspension of the council of proprietors they did 
make much of the exclusion of the three Quakers, Thomas 
Gardiner,* Thomas Lambert, and Joshua Wright from the 
second assembly upon the protest of Revell and Leeds. By 
the very circumstances of the case cooperation between the 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, p. 192. 

"^ Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 256-261. The assembly speaks of Morris as presi- 
dent of the council. 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 81, 85. 

* Gardiner was the surveyor-general of West Jersey. 



674 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Society through Morris and the Quaker interest was re- 
stored. There seems, also, little doubt that the activity and 
influence of Dominique, Richier, and Lane did much toward 
opening the eyes of the home authorities to the true char- 
acter of Cornbury's rule.' 

As long as Cornbury continued in power the proprietary 
machinery in West Jersey remained suspended. But im- 
mediately upon the accession of Lovelace the council of 
proprietors resumed operations with Lewis Morris, agent 
of the West Jersey Society, as president and William Biddle 
as vice-president. Biddle, however, frequently presided 
as Morris naturally did not attend all the meetings. 
Thomas Gardiner was of course continued as surveyor and 
John Reading as clerk." 

Work regarding the new Indian purchases was at once 
resumed. At the first session, in September, 1708, the 
council ordered that a general survey should be made of the 
recently acquired tracts, that it might be known what sum 
must be paid for the purchase proportional to the quantity 
of land that each proprietor was to take up. It was also 
agreed that those having right to less than five hundred 
acres should take up their land all in one tract." For the 
apportionment of the land it was determined that accord- 
ing to the number of persons obtaining warrants at each 
sitting of the council lots should be made and numbered, and 
according to the number each investor drew he should have 
the survey of his land made, leaving no intervals, but taking 
up the same contiguous to the next person. But, in case 
any proprietor rejected his lot, the person holding the next 
successive number was to take his place, and if he refused, 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iii, pp. 117. 127. 

'^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. ii, p. 7- 

•'•Ibid., bk. ii, p. 7. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 



675 



the next, and so on till the last number. Persons continu- 
ing to refuse might have their land in a second new pur- 
chase which was already under contemplation. But the 
person drawing the first number might have his land where 
he chose providing it was on one of the outside lines of the 
purchase.^ The renewed intluence of the Society clearly 
appears, however, in the vote that Morris as its agent might 
take up 40,000 acres at the uppermost end of the tract and 
60,000 acres adjoining it in the future purchase.* 

From this point on numerous warrants for lands in the 
recent purchase begin to be granted, and at the next session 
of the council, in November, 1708, it was resolved that 
warrants for unoccupied lands in the old purchases should 
also be granted to such as requested them if they had paid 
their proportions in the new purchases above the Falls. 

But in the meeting of April, 1709, with Morris presiding, 
it was determined that the new Indian purchase above the ' 
Falls should continue still undivided until another pur- 
chase of all the land in West Jersey above the said tract 
could be effected. Then all the land was to be taken to- 
gether and a division of the whole made with all convenient 
speed. Notice was forthwith given of this further project, 
so that as many proprietors as pleased might advance money 
for the new enterprise.'' Interest of eight pounds per cent 
was to be allowed upon all advances for either of the pur- 
chases until the dividend was made. 

The extensiveness of the new operations, however, led 
the council to take increased precautions to prevent irregu- 
larities. In February, 1709, a new rule was adopted that 
henceforth, upon all warrants for surveys that should be 
executed, the surveyor-general should return a draught and 
a certificate of survey to the council in order that it might 

' Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. ii, p. 8. 

^Ibid., bk. ii, p. 7- '^ Ibid., bk. ii, p. zz. 



676 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

be inspected and approved. Only after such approval was 
the survey to be recorded in the office of the surveyor- 
general.^ 

So far the proceedings of the council, since the renewal 
of its activity, had gone with great apparent smoothness 
and unanimity. It proved, however, a matter of some 
difficulty to maintain the good understanding between the 
energetic Morris and rest of the council. Morris evidently 
regarded the vote of the council declaring that " the So- 
ciety " might have 60,000 acres lying next to the purchase 
on the Delaware as giving him proper authority to make 
an entirely independent Indian purchase. But the council 
resented his effects and thought it necessary to write to 
Lieutenant-Governor Ingoldsby entreating him not to grant 
a license for any Indian purchase except upon certificate 
duly signed by the proprietors' recorder.^ A letter was 
also " writt " to Morris expressing surprise at his pro- 
ceedings. It was stated that the purchase under consider- 
ation was to be made by the proprietors in general to the 
use of the whole. No particular person had been designated 
for "that piece of Service." The letter contained more- 
over a broad hint that the council was grieved at Morris's 
failure to attend its sessions.^ Meanwhile the council had 
considered, though without any definite decision, the break- 
ing-up of the tracts above the Falls held so long in common. 
Morris was informed that at the next meeting the proprie- 
tors would proceed to a division of it " among us all !" 

But at the following meeting, held in January, 1710. 

' Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. ii, p. 53. 

'Since Cornbury's time the council had acted in accordance with the 
act of 1703 requiring that purchases should be made only on license 
issued by the governor on proper application by the proprietors. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. ii, pp. 
60-63. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 677 

Morris had evidently recovered his influence, for it was for- 
mally voted that, since the Indian purchase already made 
fell far short of the amount expected, a certificate should be 
issued to Morris to buy from the natives all the lands above 
the Falls whicli remained unpurchased. He was to act, 
nevertheless, in trust for *' the Society " and general pro- 
prietors.' The council, however, had to write to him later 
asking for a report on his proceedings as well as a state- 
ment as to the quantity of land he had secured for the 
Society. 

A new and highly important development now appeared 
in the opening of negotiations between the council and 
Col. Daniel Coxe." In March, 1711-12, the council wrote 
a courteous letter to Coxe, stating that he might have 5000 
acres in the new purchase and expressing the wish " to 
cultivate a good understanding." Coxe was asked, never- 
theless, to send his deeds to have them minuted according to 
*' our usual custom." to pay his proportion of the Indian 
purchase and to draw lots with the others for the location 
of his claim. Delegates were even sent to deliver the com- 
munication to Coxe personally, but could not do so on their 
first visit " by reason of his being in Bedd." 

On the next day, however, the Colonel, who was now 
evidently awake, required 10,000 acres. He asked for 
5.000 acres " certain " " in his former Pretended Survey." 
but for the other 5,000 he was willing to take a lot and pay 
his part of the purchase price. For his deeds he referred 
the council to the secretary's office, where they were on re- 
cord. To this message the council replied that Coxe could 
have 5,000 acres and no more, that being the amount that 
had satisfied William Penn. If there was any surplus 

' Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of M^est Jersey, bk. ii, p. 77- 
'^ Ibid., p. 142. 



678 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

after the allotments were surveyed, Coxe might come in for 
a further proportion with the others/ To this ultimatum 
the Colonel replied, " I thank the gentlemen. I shall not 
trouble myself further about it." 

But the council was really anxious for an arrangement, 
and in another message told Coxe that for the sake of a 
good understanding they were willing to concede him 8000 
acres. But Coxe's only answer was that when the business 
of the board was over he desired to discourse with them 
" in order to ask some questions, etc." " 

Meanwhile the council had proceeded to the division of 
the Indian purchase about which there had been so much 
discussion. Seventy-seven lots were prepared for the per- 
sons to whom the council had authorized warrants, and 
these were now duly drawn. Yet the allotment gave rise 
to contention, for John Wills, who had succeeded Biddle 
as vice-president of the council, not only refused to sign 
the lots, but deserted the board and withdrew without ad- 
journment " or any cause." In order to avoid further con- 
fusion John Kay was chosen as vice-president, and it was 
ordered that the warrants for taking up the lands distri- 
buted should be signed by all the members of the council 
(except the surveyor) or by so many of them as could be 
conveniently had.^ 

The surveyor was again instructed as to his work in lay- 
ing out the allotments. The tracts were to adjoin each 
other so that no spaces were left, and all surveys were to 
be laid out in straight lines. Each surveyor was to be at- 
tended by one chain carrier who should be sworn or 
solemnly attested to the true carrying of the chain. If any 
person for whom land was to be surveyed should be absent 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. ii, p. 144- 
"^ fbid., p. 145. ^Ibid., pp. 144-6. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 679 

(by himself or deputy), for twenty-four hours attendance 
by the surveyor, the land was to be laid out for the owner of 
the next lot and the absentee must wait until the end of that 
draft of lots. The surveyor was to begin work on April 
23, next, (1712).' 

But while the council of proprietors was taking these im- 
portant steps the political struggle between Governor 
Hunter and the old party of Cornbury had begun, and had 
already had its influence upon proprietary affairs. In No- 
vember, 171 1, Jeremiah Basse, the secretary of the pro- 
vince, although directed by the governor to qualify Thomas 
Gardiner as surveyor-general, refusetl to allow him to take 
the usual attestation on the ground that the law of England 
did not permit persons to qualify in that way for offices of 
profit, and that moreover the governor's directions had 
spoken only of qualification by oath. ^ He wrote also to 
the governor that caveats had been entered against Gardiner 
by both Col. Coxe and Daniel Leeds, formerly surveyor- 
general.^ Gardiner, on the other hand, represented to 
Hunter that the efforts against him were due to the fact 
that Basse and Coxe knew that he would not commit 
frauds to oblige them, as Daniel Leeds had frequently done.* 

Meanwhile, as a further manifestation of the activity of 
the partisans of Coxe, a protest had been drawn up against 
the exclusive and " dispotical " power assumed by the coun- 
cil of proprietors in undertaking to inspect and pass judg- 
ment on all land titles in West Jersey. The protest de- 
clared that the council had authority to dispose of no more 
than their own particular proprietary shares. It was signed 
by sixteen persons claiming to be proprietors among whom 
were Daniel Leeds, Abraham Hewlings, and John Gosling.^ 

^Minutes of the Council of Proptietors of Wesi Jersey, bk. ii, p. 147. 
"^ New Jersey Aichives, vol. iv, pp. 144, 148. 

'•"•Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 142, 148, 149. ^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 144. 

^Ibid.. vol. iv, p. 146. 



68o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

But the campaign of Coxe did not develop as might have 
been expected into a further attack upon the council as the 
engine of the Quaker interest. The annual election of 
the council, held in the spring of 1712, resulted in the choice 
of Col. Coxe himself with John Wills, Peter Fretwell. 
Thomas Stevenson, and Joshua Humphreys for Burling- 
otn,^ v^hile John Budd and Joseph Kirkbride were of those 
chosen at Gloucester.^ The election meant that Coxe was 
in control of the council, for he was forthwith made its 
president. John Wills who had deserted the recent council 
was installed as clerk, in place of John Reading.^ And 
though the new board did not go so far as to turn Thomas 
Gardiner out of his office, it coupled Daniel Leeds with him 
as authorized surveyor.* What causes had brought about 
the revolution in the council we can only surmise. It seems 
probable that Coxe had obtained the support not only of 
those who had regularly followed him, but also of persons 
like Wills who were disgruntled over the recent allotments 
in the new Indian purchase. 

At any rate there were important results. Directly after 
the election, and wnthout the attendance of the members 
chosen at Gloucester, the council held a session and voted 
that the former council had acted too hastily and irregularly 
with regard to the sui"veying of the new purchase.'^ An 
order was sent immediately to Gardiner to prevent him 
and all other surveyors from making any further surveys 
therein, and notice of the action was given to the public. 
At the next meeting it was further ordered that a caveat 
be entered in the secretary's office to prevent the recording 
of any such surveys till the council gave its consent." 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 152. 

"^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. t. 

'^ Ibid., p. 2. '■Ibid., p. 7. ^ Ibid., p. i. '^Ibid., p. 3. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 68 1 

The new council then showed its real hand by deciding 
that Daniel Coxe, Peter Sonmans, and Thomas Stevenson 
should have 10,900 acres in the new purchase to be laid out 
in as regular a form as the nature of the place they should 
pitch upon permitted. It was, however, to be clear of all 
the surveys lately made, and the holders engaged to renounce 
all further claims in the new purchase and to pay their 
share of the purchase money.' A little later, Coxe and 
Sonmans were authorized to take up a further tract of 5,000 
acres,- but the latter soon resigned his claim to his part- 
ner.'' In the December meeting, however, Sonmans ap- 
plied for a warrant for 20,000 acres in any place already 
purchased, basing his claim upon a propriety bought by his 
father from Edward Byllinge. The council at once granted 
a Vv arrant.'* 

But meanwhile the council had met opposition from John 
Reading, its former clerk. The new board had ordered 
Reading to deliver the Indian deeds for " the new Indian 
Purchase," together with the minutes, books, and papers, 
belonging to the proprietors. Yet he hesitated to obey. 
After endeavoring to delay by requesting time to consider. 
Reading, however, finally agreed to give the deeds to the 
secretary that they might be recorded and then made over 
to the person appointed by the council of proprietors.^ In 
reply to this proposition the council resolved that they had 
always been of the opinion that all deeds should be entered 
at the secretary's office, but, as the secretary would not re- 
turn for five days and as they feared that meanwhile ill use 
might be made of the deeds, they insisted that the records 
be delivered at once." This vote seems to have been ef- 
fective, and Reading does not appear to have even incurred 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 2. 
'Ibid., p. 7. ^Ibid., p. 14- 'Ibid., p. 17. ^Ibid,. p. 6. 



682 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the permanent hostility of the board, as upon the death of 
Thomas Gardiner, John Reading Jr. was chosen surveyor- 
general in his stead. ^ 

At length, in the December meeting of 171 2, the new 
surveyor-general, who had been formerly engaged in the 
work as deputy to Gardiner, submitted, by order of the 
council, an account of the surveys already made in " the 
new Indian Purchase." ^ There were thirty-three of these, 
chiefly for amounts between one hundred and five hundred 
acres. Coxe had 4,170 acres; Gardiner's heirs, 2,225 ; Wil- 
liam Penn, S»ooo; and William Biddle, tracts of 1350 and 
1665. 

But one of the earliest acts of the Coxe regime was to 
set on foot a further Indian purchase with a view to mak- 
ing a fourth proprietary dividend. •'' The first difficulty 
to be encountered, however, was in obtaining from the 
govervnor the required certificate to purchase of the na- 
tives, for it must be remembered that Hunter was already 
at swords' po'nts with Col. Coxe. Objection was at once 
entered by Willocks, and by Thomas Byerly, both of whom 
held interests in West Jersey, against the issue of the li- 
cense.* Hunter also received a protest from Morris."' 
The governor, however, informed the West Jersey council 
of the reasons offered against them, and they presented 
answers.** They informed Hunter, moreover, that there 
was still wanting 200,000 acres to accommodate those pro- 
prietors who were behind on their first dividend.' The 
result was that the governor granted the council his cer- 
tificate.^ 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 14. 

^ Ibid., p. 30. '^ Ibid., p. 36. ^ Ibid., p. 10. 

''Ibid., p. II. ^Ibid., pp. 10, 11. ''Ibid., p. 13. 

*Ibid., p. 16; Liber AAA of Commissions, p. 144. The license gave 
power to purchase to Coxe, Gardiner, Kirkbride, Stevenson, Fretwell 
and Wills. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 683 

The council then gave pubHc notice of its project that 
all proprietors so inclined might join in the purchase.^ But 
immediately afterward it gave an object lesson of its new 
business methods by the vote that Col. Coxe should have 
first choice of 15,000 acres in one entire tract of the land 
to be acquired. John Wills was to come in for second 
choice of 862 acres, and Peter Fretwell was third for 700. 
Then came Thomas Stevenson, who was to have 2000 
acres, Joseph Kirkbride, whose share was 6,000, and oth- 
ers in designated order." 

Reading and Stevenson were deputed to view the lands 
in the northern part of the province the purchase of which 
was contemplated, and to them with Kirkbride was com- 
mitted power to treat with the natives and to secure such 
lands as they deemed valuable. But the council had difficul- 
ties in securing ready funds to carry through the transac- 
tion. When the project had first been taken up a sub- 
scription of £26 6s. had been raised to buy Indian goods." 
But this contribution was of course merely to cover 
preliminary expenses. A considerable debt was soon 
contracted, and in the meeting of March, 1712-13, an 
appeal had to be issued to the most considerable proprietors 
to meet and contribute." Yet even this appeal did not give 
a satisfactory result, and the council was finally obliged, 
after full consideration of ways and means, to empower 
Stevenson and Reading to sell 1000 acres of land, or as 
much as was wanting for the payment of the natives."' 

But while the council was thus engaged, occurred the 
annual election of 171 3. Coxe and his four colleagues 
were, however, again returned for Burlington, but the pro- 

^ Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 17. 
Ubid., pp. 34, 36. ""/bid., p. 7. 

*Ibid., p. 36. -'Ibid., pp. 43- 44- 



684 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

prietors at Gloucester selected John Reading. Richard Bull, 
John Budd, and James Logan. The appearance of the 
latter gentleman, widely known as the representative of 
William Penn, was undoubtedly a matter of importance 
for the proprietorship of West Jersey.^ After the board 
met it had to consider a dispute as to the election of Bull. 
But to save time it decided that both Bull and Kirkbride, the 
rival candidate, should sit and vote. Col. Coxe was re- 
elected as president, but the Quaker, Peter Fretwell, became 
vice-president. Wills was again clerk and recorder.^ 

Reading and Stevenson now reported that they had made 
several purchases from divers Indian chiefs by which the 
latter had given up all their rights in West Jerse3^^ There- 
upon the council made public advertisement of the pur- 
chase and the apportionment of the fourth dividend.' All 
desiring to take part were ordered to meet the council on 
October 20th at Burlington to enter the quantities of land 
to which they were entitled and to provide for the payment 
of their share of the purchase money. 

This meeting was duly held, and various claims entered 
and approved. ° But it was further agreed that, as several 
of the proprietors were at a distance, further notice be 
given, and that all who paid their shares before November 
20th should be allowed to come in on equal terms.*' Even 
with this concession, however, the result appears to have 
been considered so unsatisfactory that in the spring of 

^ Logan Avas for a long time treasurer of the council. 
^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 41. 
^Ibid., p. 45. 

"•Like the earlier dividends this was for 5000 acres on a propriety. 
^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 51 
et seq. 
^Ibid., p. 55. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 685 

1 714 the council, which had not been radically changed in 
personnel by the yearly election, thought best to extend 
further the time within which payment should be made, and 
to give formal assurance that the apportionment of the 
lands would be impartial. This last declaration was in 
answer to some who had expressed doubts lest the tracts 
be not assigned fairly.' 

In September, 171 4, the board perfected the arrange- 
ments for apportionment." All the land was to be surveyed 
into lots of 1250 acres each. These were to be numbered. 
Then lots were to be drawn "' faithfully," and, according to 
the numbers which they drew, the proprietors were to have 
warrants, and should proceed in the same order to have their 
lands surveyed in such places as they might choose. Those 
whose claims did not amount to 1250 acres were to join 
together. But none should take up above ten acres of 
meadow or rich low land to one hundred acres, and not less 
than the quantity contained in the respective lots should 
be laid out in one tract or parcel. Lots might be rejected, 
and those so acting might have warrants for their lands in 
any other part of the western division. 

Among the numerous claims entered for the new dividend 
the largest were, of course, those of Penn and Coxe. Logan 
claimed for Penn twelve proprieties, ten secured from Fen- 
wick, Elbridge, and Warner, one from Daniel Waite, and 
another purchased in 1697 from William Hague and Philip 
Ford.^ Colonel Coxe claimed 20,000 acres in right of the 
share undisposed of by Edward Byllinge at the time of his 
decease.* To support this claim he produced a deed from 
Gratia Bartlet, the surviving daughter of Byllinge, in con- 
firmation of a former deed of 1691, granting to Dr. Daniel 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 60. 
-Ibid., p. 67. ^Ibid., pp. 52, 101. *Ibid., p. 109. 



686 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

Coxe all of Bylling-e's remaining interests in West Jersey. 
But the council held that, because of the generally published 
account that Edward Byllinge had disposed of all his ninety- 
hundredths of West Jersey before his death, it would not 
be safe to allow Col. Coxe's claim till it more clearly ap- 
peared that Byllinge at his death had a right to any lands 
then not alienated. 

Col. Coxe then produced an account from several lists 
that in 1676 Byllinge and trustees granted to Samuel Cole 
of London (haberdasher), and Benjamin Bartlet of Lon- 
don, (gentleman), one whole propriety. Also Byllinge and 
trustees in 1677 granted one whole propriety to the said 
Bartlet, Josiah Thomas, and Elizabeth Harris, three- 
sevenths for Bartlet, two-sevenths to Thomas, and two- 
sevenths to Elizabeth Harris. Coxe further produced a 
deed from Gratia Bartlet, conveying to Dr. Coxe all the 
estate of her said husand, and also another especially con- 
veying his estate in West Jersey. These deeds bore the 
date of 1702. In addition Col. Coxe laid before the coun- 
cil deeds for three proprieties from Thomas Williams. By 
this formidable list of documents the board was convinced, 
and ordered the issue of Coxe's warrant.^ 

At length on October 9, 17 14, the lots were drawn and 
recorded. The total area thus disposed of amounted to 
205,374 acres." The council then agreed that April i6th 
next be the day for the proprietors and the surveyor to begin 
the actual work of surveying the lots, or at least April i8th. 
The surveyor was to stay at least twenty-four hours after 
the survey of one lot before beginning the next, and he 
must then survey for the person next in turn.* 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, pp. 

IIO-III. 

'^ Ibid., p. 112. ^Ibid., p. 121. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 687 

During the sessions of 171 5 the council of which Col. 
Coxe was once more president, with John Kay as vice- 
president, was occupied chiefly with the ordering of further 
warrants and the approval of surveys returned. But the 
only serious difficulty shown by the records was in the case 
of a claim by George Willocks which was now disallowed 
though once held valid. ^ 

But while the council of proprietors had thus been engaged 
in making its fourth dividend the political conflict between 
Governor Hunter and Colonel Coxe had been growing ever 
more bitter, and the supporters of the governor both in and 
out of the West Jersey proprietorship were only too ready 
to seize any mode of attack upon Coxe and those under 
his control. In February, 1713-14, Thomas Byerly de- 
livered to Hunter in council a memorial complaining of 
Reading, Leeds, the council of proprietors, and the sec- 
retary.' Ten days later the council of proprietors ap- 
peared personally before the governor and delivered their 
answer.^ But damaging evidence had been produced to 
show that Surveyor-General Leeds had altered records of 
survey in an improper manner.* Leeds, it will be recalled, 
had always been an especially subservient tool of Coxe and 
had made himself conspicuous as such during Cornbury's 
administration. After investigation the royal council na- 
turally declared that Leeds had been guilty of many frauds, 
and it was ordered that he be discharged from acting further 
as surveyor-general.'"' The attorney-general was also au- 
thorized to prosecute him upon information. But Alex- 
ander Griffith deliberately connived at his escape.® Upon 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 
133 et seq. 

'^ New Jersey Archives, vol. xiii, p. 516. ^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 524. 

*Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 525, 526. "Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 551. 

^ Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 560. 



688 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

the remov^al of Griffith, Thomas Gordon was directed to 
renew the prosecution/ In 171 6 the trial was at length 
held before the supreme court, but Leeds was acquitted. - 
The council of proprietors, however, made no effort to 
reinstate him as surveyor-general, for in 1714, John Read- 
ing, Jr., and Richard Bull were chosen in room of Leeds, 
and Thomas Gardiner, deceased.'' 

The attack upon Leeds was of course hardly a very 
serious blow to the council of proprietors. But in July 
171 5, that body received Governor Hunter's proclamation 
forbidding any person to act as proprietary register within 
West Jersey but James Smith, or as surveyor-general but 
James Alexander.* Smith and Alexander bore commis- 
sions for these posts from the West Jersey Society, but 
the governor and royal council recognized their claim to act 
for the entire West Jersey proprietorship.' No doubt the 
influence of Morris had much to do with the stand taken by 
Hunter as the former had held resolutely aloof from the 
work of the council of proprietors ever since it had come 
under control of Coxe. The West Jersey council appears 
to have been rather dazed by the blow, but decided to ad- 
dress Hunter on the subject and to inform him of " their 
condition and circumstances." Logan, Coxe, and Reading 
were named to prepare the address.** 

Just at this point, however, occurred the rout of Coxe 
and his supporters in the seventh assembly, followed by the 
flight of the redoubtable colonel from the province, and 
his futile mission to England. These circumstances had 

^ New Jersey Archives , vol. xiii, p. 563. 

^Records of the Supreme Cotirt, Burlington (1716-1732), p. 4. 
^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 64. 
*Ibid., p. 150. '' New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 3. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 
150 et seq. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 689 

an immediate efifect upon the proprietary concerns. The 
proprietary election for 171 6 resulted in the choice at 
Burlington of Coxe, Logan, Wills, Deacon, and Lewis 
Morris, while Reading, Bull, John Budd, and Humphries 
were selected at Gloucester. But Coxe was naturally not 
present when the board organized, and Lewis Morris was 
chosen as president with George Deacon, a Friend, and a 
supporter of Governor Hunter, as vice-president. All 
other officers were declared continued till further order. 
The council, however, took no immediate action regarding 
the recognition of James Smith and Alexander.^ The re- 
organization meant, of course, the supplanting of the Coxe 
interest by that of Morris. 

The conduct of the new council showed at once the turn 
affairs had taken, for it immediately passed resolutions to 
remove the misunderstanding which was declared to have 
existed for some time past between the board and the 
agent of the West Jersey Society. It was agreed that the 
agents of all absent proprietors should be admitted to vote 
in electing the council and in case the agent of " the So- 
ciety " was not elected he was still to be admitted as a 
member of the council with the right to debate and to vote.^ 

In addition the council re-enacted and revised some of its 
rules regarding the keeping of its records. No certificate 
was to be issued by the proprietary recorder for obtaining 
the governor's license to purchase land of the Indians with- 
out the approval of the committee (council) signified by 
their clerk. In case the office of recorder and clerk were 
vested in different persons the order must be signed by 
both. The surv^eyor-general's office was to be held at 
Burlington, all records and drafts of surveys were to be 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 154. 
* Ibid., p. 157. 



690 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

lodged there, and all new warrants and surveys recorded. 
All warrants for the survey of land were to be directed to 
the surveyor-general or his deputy, and the said surveyor- 
general was to make a return of such surveys to the 
committee. The return was to be by them inspected and 
approved before being put on record by the recorder. 
All warrants previously granted and not yet returned 
were ordered to be executed by the officers to whom 
they were addressed, and returned accordingly, but great 
care was to be used in approving the return of sur- 
veys. Lastly it was agreed that notice be given to all pro- 
prietors who had not yet had their lots in the last purchase 
surveyed that they should cause them to be surveyed before 
January first. At that date the land was to be thrown open 
to all proprietors who showed title and paid their Indian 
purchase money. ^ 

Morris next submitted the draft of survey of a tract of 
91,895 acres, made in June, 171 1, in accordance with the 
agreement made at that time by the council that he should 
make an Indian purchase of 100,000 acres for the Society. 
Morris said that the death of Thomas Gardiner, and the 
fact that he himself lived so far from Burlington had pre- 
vented the presentation of the survey before. In spite of 
the flimsy character of his excuse the survey was of course 
allowed and a warrant issued." The energetic " agent " 
also " made it appear " that a considerable amount was still 
due the Society on the third dividend, but the council would 
take no action regarding the matter until the fourth dividend 
was cleared up.' 

From this time until 1723 no very sweeping change in the 
personnel of the council is to be noted. Morris, however, 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 157 
et seq. "^Ibid., p. 173. ^Ibid., p. I75- 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 69I 

as usual did not attend the meetings regularly, and John 
Kay, who soon superseded Deacon as vice-president, gener- 
ally presided/ In 1718 Dr. John Johnstone, so well known 
for his transactions in East Jersey, was chosen for the 
council from Burlington and served several terms/ John 
Wills continued as clerk. 

But that the agent of the West Jersey Society continued 
to have influence is indicated in the formal election by the 
council of James Alexander as surveyor-general of West 
Jersey during good behavior.^ It appears that the coun- 
cil, though willing enough to have Alexander as their sur- 
veyor, did not wish to recognize the commission granted to 
him in 171 5 by the West Jersey Society, since the right 
to control the surv^eyor-generalship was a great element of 
strength to the council. To prevent trouble, however, and 
to avoid conflict with the powerful English proprietors, the 
council proposed to elect Alexander on condition that he 
would accept the appointment from them. Alexander 
agreed on the proviso that his appointment should be made 
in such a manner as to prevent later disputes.' 

When the council thus selected Alexander, (who, it must 
be remembered, was also surveyor-general of East Jersey), 
it laid down certain definite conditions.* He was to keep 
the office at Burlington either personally or by a deputy for 
whom he was to be answerable, and who was to be approved 
by the board. ^ The regulations of the council regarding 
the issuing, return, and recording of warrants for survey 
were to be strictly observed, and Alexander, in accord- 
ance with an agreement previously made with Morris, was 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 176. 
^ Ibid., p. 182. '^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 275. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 182. 
^ Isaac Decowe was selected as deputy and approved. 



692 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



to endeavor to collect and lodge all records relating to 
surveys in his office. He was not to take any records out 
of Burlington for a longer space than twenty days. Lastly, 
Alexander was not as surveyor-general of East Jersey, in 
case of any dispute, to presume to survey for any of the 
eastern division lands that had been regularly surveyed 
on proprietary rights of West Jersey. 

After this somewhat unsatisfactory settlement of the 
relations between the council and the West Jersey Society 
the chief matter occupying the attention of the former body 
was for some time the boundary question. As early as 
April, 1709, the council of proprietors had voted that the 
boundary line between New Jersey and New York should 
be run as soon as possible and had named a committee to 
treat with the proprietors of East Jersey and with Lord 
Lovelace regarding the matter.^ In March, 1712, infor- 
mation was brought that " patentees of York " were en- 
croaching upon Jersey settlers and harassing them by suits. 
The council had thereupon ordered Thomas Gardiner to 
state the case to Hunter, to the end that he might stop the 
troubles and cause the division line to be run.^ But this 
action appears to have had no immediate result. 

Now in May, 1718, the council received a letter in Dutch 
signed by Jan Decker and other settlers on the upper 
Delaware holding under West Jersey, complaining that 
they had been abused by inhabitants of New York to 
make them submit to that government. The board forth- 
with resolved to lay the matter before the governor, and to 
do all it could to promote the running of the line.^ A little 



'^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. ii, p. ZS- 
This action was taken in connection with the Indian purchases on the 
upper Delaware. 

"^ Ibid., p. 148. ^ Ibid., p. 179. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 693 

later the council went so far as to assume the expenses of 
John Budd and Richard Bull who were engaged in a suit 
regarding lands in East Jersey which had been claimed by 
New York/ These circumstances undoubtedly contributed 
in moving Hunter to call for the legislation in both of his 
provinces which provided for the boundary line commission. 
Meanwhile James Logan had opened the negotiations 
with the proprietors of East Jersey regarding the running 
of the division line between the two Jerseys." In so do- 
ing, however, Penn's representative seems to have acted 
without the formal authority of the council of his division. 
Indeed that body at first maintained that the Barclay-Coxe 
line was the only true one and that the attempt of certain 
of the East Jersey proprietors to alter it must lead to con- 
fusion and injury.' But led, it would seem, by Logan, 
they readily acquiesced in the passage of the act of assembly 
of 1718-19 which provided for the abandonment of the 
Barclay-Coxe line and all other accommodations, and a 
return to the quintipartite deed. Logan and Dr. John- 
stone took the lead in carrying this measure through the 
assembly.* Logan held that this return to the original ar- 
rangement was the only just settlement, and moreover that, 
even if the West Jersey proprietors surrendered the appar- 
ent advantage of the Barclay-Coxe treaty, yet they would 
be compensated by the fact that " ye Titles of Land will 
be much better settled & their prices will considerably ad- 
vance." ^ But his seasoning was clearly influenced by his 
knowledge that the Barclay-Coxe agreement " had no 
sufficient foundation in ye law to build upon." ^ The 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 184. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 377. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 186. 

* New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 390. 

'^ Ibid., vol. iv, p. 390. ^Ibid., vol. iv, p. 389- 



694 ^^^ PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

West Jersey proprietorship was of course affected equally 
with that of East Jersey by the provisions of the act for 
running the division line, which required the regular main- 
taining of the surveyor-general's offices and the proper 
recording of all surveys, and which authorized the recovery 
of all land records held in private hands. ^ But in the case 
of West Jersey these articles simply gave legal sanction to 
well established proprietary regulations. 

The West Jersey council proceeded promtply to ar- 
range for the carrying-out of the act. It ordered the 
raising of £500 to cover the expenses or running the 
line by a charge of £5 on each propriety,^ and wrote 
a letter to the proprietors of the eastern division not 
only setting a definite time for the meeting of the man- 
agers appointed to carry out the work, but also urging the 
need of prompt action.^ Yet in spite of the fact that Logan, 
Lambert, and Reading, after meeting the East Jersey com- 
missioners, themselves emphasized in their report the need 
of dispatch,* the matter hung fire. At the meeting of the 
council of May, 1721, there had to be further delay because 
a majority of the managers were not even present.^ The 
reason for this negligence does not appear, though we know 
that John Reading was now dead and that Joseph Kirk- 
bride had been inclined to the Coxe interest. 

The delay was fatal to the whole project, for after the 
retirement of Governor Hunter Colonel Daniel Coxe re- 
turned to West Jersey prepared once more to take a leading 
part in public affairs. The proprietary election of 1723 

' Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 188 
et seq. 

^ Ibid., p. 203. The letter was given to David Lyell who happened to 
be in Burlington. 

*/bid., p. 208. ''Ibid., p. 223. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 



695 



resulted in the choice of the said Colonel Coxe, John Gos- 
ling, Thomas Wetherill, Thomas Budd, and Titan Leeds at 
Burlington, and of John Hugg, John Mickle, Samuel Coale, 
and John Inskip at Gloucester to " agitate " the proprietary 
affairs for the ensuing year.^ This choice gave Coxe again 
complete control. He resumed his place as president of 
the council, and Titan Leeds superseded Isaac Deacowe " 
as clerk. 

Although Logan had informed Coxe fully as to the 
reasons of the former council for surrendering their claims 
under the Barclay-Coxe agreement,* Col. Coxe was entirely 
opposed to the act of 1718-19 for running the boundary 
line, as well as to all other arrangements made in his ab- 
sence. Surveyor-general Alexander was at once ordered 
to give no further assistance to the commissioners of East 
Jersey for running the line, but to lay all papers and docu- 
ments relating thereto before the council. If the East 
Jersians insisted on running the line, he was to inform Coxe 
at once.* Alexander submitted the records as ordered. '^ 
The new council resolved further that, as there was reason 
to apprehend that measures might be taken to secure the 
royal approval for the act for running the line, it would 
wait upon Governor Burnet and desire him to use his in- 
fluence against such approval until the council could pre- 
sent its side of the case to the Crown. ^ In the October 
meeting of 1723 the council carefully prepared a bill for 
repealing the act in question and had it " writ fare " to lay 
before the assembly.^ But, though Coxe did not have 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 238. 
^ Decowe had shortly before been chosen in room of John Wills. 
^ New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, p. 388. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 238. 
° Ibid., p. 243. ^ Ibid., p. 244. "^ Ibid., p. 249. 



696 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

sufficient influence to carry this measure through the as- 
sembly, his measures for blocking the running of the line 
were, for reasons explained in the last chapter, en- 
tirely successful for the time being. His practical nul- 
lification of the law of 1 718-19 is certainly an interesting 
episode in the politics of the colony. 

Meanwhile the re-establishment of Coxe's control over 
the council had given rise to certain vexatious difficulties. 
Decowe, upon order, delivered the papers in his possession 
to the newly elected clerk Titan Leeds. ^ But it appeared that 
a part of the minutes of the council were still in the hands 
of John Wills and John Reading, Jr., former clerks. The 
board ordered them to surrender their papers and resolved 
that all future clerks should at once make over their records 
to their successors.* But John Wills appeared personally 
before the council, and said that he would not deliver the 
papers until they had been " farely transcribed." Then the 
board might have the originals.^ After a delay of two 
months he was ready to give up his records, but did not do 
so until October, 1723.* Meanwhile the business of the 
council had been balked. 

But John Reading still held out. In August, 1724, he 
sent a letter saying that he would copy the minutes, if he 
was paid for the copy. Otherwise he would deliver them 
to the new clerk to copy upon his security to return them.-* 
Yet in April, 1727, Reading had still failed to deliver his 
records. He was now served with an order to do so,*' but 
we can only infer that he complied. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 238. 
^Ibid., p. 240. 

^ Ibid., p. 243. The student can hardly avoid the inference that there 
were often suspicions as to the methods of Coxe. 
^ Ibid., p. 246. ^ Ibid., p. 256. ^Ibid., p. 286. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 697 

During this period the work of the council in passing 
upon claims presented and authorizing shares of the divid- 
ends was becoming much lighter. The third and fourth 
dividends were evidently nearly " cleared up." About the 
only incident relative to this side of the council's activity 
which seems of interest to the historical student is with 
reference to the grant of 20,000 acres at Amwell, formerly 
given to Peter Sonmans. This tract Sonmans had released 
to Col. Coxe, but the board of proprietors interceded with 
their president to surrender it altogether.^ Coxe finally 
did so, taking a receipt. The release was ordered to be 
kept by the clerk. But later the matter caused further 
difficulty. It appeared that the survey had originally been 
made for Arent Sonmans in 1699, ^^^ ^^ ^"^^^ ^^^^ '^ ^^ 
Peter, his heir, who had conveyed it to Col. Coxe in 171 2. 
Later, however, by " inadvertance " - the said Peter Son- 
mans made it over to John Hadden, and three others in 
trust for the London Land Company. Accordingly in 
1736 agents of the London Land Company requested war- 
rants for 10,000 acres in West Jersey in lieu of the tract 
released by Sonmans. Under the circumstances the coun- 
cil saw fit to authorize the warrant for survey.'' 

Meanwhile came a new conflict regarding the surveyor- 
generalship. It might naturally be expected that the re- 
lations between Coxe and Alexander, the protege of Hun- 
ter, would not be too cordial. Nevertheless after the re- 
establishment of the Coxe regime Alexander was continued 
as surveyor-general.* But he, of course, continued to make 
New York his headquarters and to act in West Jersey 
chiefly '' by the hand of Isaac Decowe," his deputy. Evi- 

^ Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iii, p. 281. 
^Highly characteristic. The date of the transaction was Sept., 1723. 
^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iv, p. 66. 
*Ibid., bk. iii, p. 240. 



698 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

dently Alexander was not in very close touch with the 
council. In March, 1723-4, upon attending their session 
he was informed that his deputies had taken unusual fees 
for surveying.^ The board thereupon " settled " the fees, 
and entered them upon its records. 

Finally in May, 1728, the council elected as surveyor- 
general in place of Alexander, John Burr, who had for 
some time previous been clerk." In the letter inform- 
ing Alexander, however, Thomas Budd, the new clerk, was 
careful to state that the step had been taken because the 
council had information that Alexander wished to give up 
the office and not because of any personal dislike or charges 
of misconduct. Alexander was, however, requested to sur- 
render all records belonging to his post.^ Burr also wrote 
a personal letter to Alexander, declaring that he had no 
inclination to act without his consent.* 

But Alexander had actually no desire to give up so pro- 
fitable a post, and would not make over the records. In 
May, 1728, the council therefore again wrote ordering him 
to do so.'^ Thus assailed, Alexander memorialized Gov- 
ernor Montgomerie.*^ With his usual ability he set forth 
all the facts in his case, including both his original com- 
missioning by the proprietors in England, and his subse- 
quent election by the West Jersey council to serve during 
good behavior. He stated that he had given the £1000 
security required by the act of 1718-19, and that he 
had not been guilty of any misconduct in office. But he 
believed that there was a combination among some of the 

^Minutes of tlie Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iv, p. 252. 

^Ibid., p. 296. '■'' New Jersey Archives, vol. v, pp. 211, 212. 

^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 212. 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iv. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 273. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 699 

West Jersey proprietors against him. Further he com- 
plained of Samuel Bustill/ deputy to James Smith, the pro- 
vincial secretary, for having taken upon himself, without 
proper authority, to qualify another person for his office. 
A copy of Alexander's memorial was sent to Bustill. 

In its meeting of November, 1730, the council of pro- 
prietors determined to give all the evidence in the con- 
troversy to John Kinsey, Jr., for his assistance and advice 
in negotiating the affair.^ As a result a full answer was 
prepared to Alexander's charges.^ But the council was 
obliged to fall back upon its general powers which they 
declared had been recognized by Hunter. They had al- 
ways constituted a surveyor-general, nor did the proprie- 
tors in England have superiority over them in this respect. 
As for the action of Bustill he had been given power to 
qualify officers by a writ of Dedimus potestatem, and had 
only exercised his legal right. 

Meanwhile the board has made choice of Samuel Scat- 
tergood as surveyor-general, and he had been qualified for 
the office.* The council then authorized him to recover all 
records from Isaac Decowe, and passed a lengthy resolu- 
tion declaring that, in spite of the provision of the act of 
1 718-19, it did not appear that Alexander had given se- 
curity. 

At this interesting point the confusion of the proprietary 
minutes prevents us from seeing clearly in what way the 
matter was settled. But it is certain that Alexander was 
recognized as the legal surveyor-general in 1731,^ and that 

' Bustill was closely identified with Coxe. 

"^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iv, mis- 
placed pages. 

^ New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 278. 

* Mi?iutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iv, p. 3. 

^ Ibid., p. 171. 



700 



THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 



he was re-elected in 1732/ We can be sure only that the 
attack upon him failed. 

Further worry was now caused to the council by the re- 
port received in a letter from " the Jersey agent " to John 
Kinsey that the Lords of Trade had recommended to the 
Crown the confirmation of the act for running the bound- 
ary line. Coxe was therefore authorized to write to the 
agent and represent to him the injury sustained by West 
Jersey under the said act." In addition Morris was re- 
quested to appoint a committee of East Jersey proprietors 
to confer with one from West Jersey regarding the line.^ 
But though the act was really confirmed by the Crown the 
embarrassed East Jersey proprietorship was as helpless as 
ever to obtain its execution. 

Meanwhile a demand developed among the proprietors of 
West Jersey for a fifth dividend. In August, 1736, this 
question was considered by the council, but referred to a 
further meeting.* But finally in March, 1736-37, the 
board determined to give notice of a fifth apportionment, 
and summoned all proprietors to meet on April seventh 
or May third next at the house of William Bickley in 
Burlington to consider the matter.^ At the meeting in 
April it was then formally agreed that no warrant for the 
fifth dividend should be granted to any except with the 
limitation that the land be taken below the Falls of the 
Delaware at Trenton.** This matter having been deter- 
mined, the issue of the new warrants began. The board 
was thus occupied when the union period came to an end. 

Since the reappearance of Coxe in 1723 there had of 
course been numerous changes in the personnel of the coun- 

^ Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iv, p. 23. 
"^ Ibid., p. 181. -'Ibid., p. 65. ^Ibid., p. 191. 

''Ibid., p. 66. ^Ibid., p. 68. 



THE PROPRIETORSHIP UNDER ROYAL RULE 70 1 

cil of proprietors, but these hardly appear to have been of 
a very significant character. Colonel Coxe continued to 
hold the presidency and the prevailing influence. The vice- 
presidency was held first by Joshua Wright, and later by 
Thomas Whetherill, and in 1729 it was voted that when 
the president was absent the vice-president and any four 
members might proceed to business.^ Such an arrange- 
ment was quite safe as little business w^as being transacted 
at this time. There were, however, numerous changes in 
the clerkship which was held after Titan Leeds by John 
Hugg, John Burr, Thomas Budd, and Samuel Scattergood. 
In 1732 the board itself consisted of Coxe, Peter Bard, 
Whetherill, John Burr, Scattergood, William Harrison, 
John Hinchman, John Ladd, and Clement Hall." 

Little remains to be said as to the general character of 
the work of the council. Throughout the period some little 
trouble had been caused by cases of trespass, and the cut- 
ting of trees on proprietary land.^ But all things consid- 
ered it is rather remarkable that there was not more 
complaint. 

In its general business methods the council, as has been 
indicated, was painstaking. Yet the clumsy character of 
the proprietorship itself was always a handicap. In some 
cases it was evidently difficult to tell exactly what shares 
on proprieties still remained to be taken up ; and new claims, 
sometimes of doubtful legality, were occasionally presented. 
A striking example occurred in 1719, when a memorandum 
was made in the minutes of a whole propriety conveyed 
in 1685 by Dr. Daniel Coxe to Walter Harris, merchant 
of Dublin. To the memorandum is attached a note, " Here 
is a propriety named ; query whether any such, Prop*^ ever 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iv, p. 161. 
^Ibid., p. 23. ^E. g., Ibid., bk. Hi, p. 188. 



702 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY 

came to knowledge of the Council of Proprietors before 
this time." ' 

But that the record of the council was carefully kept 
down to 1729, the existing minute books are a proof. For 
a period after this date, however, the minutes seem to have 
been kept very carelessly. In May, 1736, the council itself 
ordered that since for " some years " the minutes had been 
kept in a loose and " promisias " manner the clerk should 
procure a book and transcribe the same.^ If he did so the 
transcribing was only a limited success, 

^Minutes of the Council of Proprietors of West Jersey, bk. iv, p. 196. 
"^Ibid., p. 60. 



INDEX. 



Ackerman. David, 372. 373, 428 

Addison, Joseph, 143, 144 

Airs, John, 666 

Alcorn, 666 

Alexander, James, 63, 167, 198. 206, 

209, 215, 218. 219, 256, 258, 275, 

276, 2-]-], 278. 279, 295, 452, 480, 

493. 498, 549. 630. 631, 640. 643. 

644, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 657. 

658, 660, 661. 66s, 666, 667, 688, 

689, 691, 692. 695, 697, 698, 699 
Allen, Jedediah. 353, 481, 483 
Allen, John, 209, 601 
Ambo Point, 45 
Anderson, Col. John, 239, 250, 272, 

275, 276. 277. 278, 309, 419, 442, 

573. 590. 591. 627 
Anderson, William, 338. 388, 389 
Andriesse, Lawrence. 43, 83 
Andros, Gov., 11, 74, 88, 92, 115, 121, 

127, 128, 129, 130, 134, 135 
Anne, Queen, 327, 335, 420, 422, 588, 

596, 619 
Aqueyquinonke, 43 
Ashfield, Richard, 216. 649. 650, 652, 

653, 655, 657, 658, 660 
Assembly, General, 307-376 
Acts "concerning the Acknowledg- 
ing and Registering of Deeds 
and Conveyances of Land," 

651 

"for the Security of his Ma- 
jesty's Government of New 
Jersey," 211 

"for ascertaining the place of 
Settling of the Representatives 
in General Assembly," 227 
"for better Qualifying Repre- 
sentatives," 227 
"concerning the Duty of the 
Commissioners appointed to 
manage the Loan Offices," 548 
"for Providing a Remedy in 
Case any of the Signers of the 
Bills of Credit of this Pro- 
vince should by Death or 
Otherwise be rendered incap- 
able of signing the same," 548 
"for laying out, regulating. 



clearing and preserving public 
common highways throughout 
this province," 529, 530 
"for building, rebuilding, re- 
pairing or amending of 
bridges in the respective 
towns or precincts," 529 
"for the Relief of the Poor," 
531 

"for Amending and Explain- 
ing an Act entitled an Act for 
Enforcing the Currency of 
£3000 Bills of Credit," 541 
"for the Currency of Bills of 
Credit up to 11,675 ounces of 
plate," 544 

"for the making of £24,760 in 
bills of credit in order to ex- 
change the bills of credit for- 
merly made current in this 
province by an act passed in 
17-23," 550 

"for Reviving and Continuing 
the Courts of Quarter Ses- 
sions and Common Pleas in 
Bergen, Middlesex and Mon- 
mouth Counties," 465 
"for Ascertaining the Qualifi- 
cations of Jurors," 466 
"for Shortening of Lawsuits 
and Regulating the Practice 
of the Law," 467, 473 
"for Acknowledging and Re- 
cording of Deeds and Convey- 
ances of Land within each 
respective County of the Pro- 
vince," 467, 473 
"for Enforcing the Observa- 
tion of the Ordinance for Es- 
tablishing Fees within this 
Province," 468 

"for the better enforcing an 
Ordinance made for Establish- 
ing of Fees and for Regulat- 
ing the Practice of the Law," 

474 

"for Explaining and Render- 
ing more Effectual the act of 
support," 505 

703 



704 



INDEX 



"for Settling the Militia," 569 
"for Running and Ascertain- 
ing the Line of Partition or 
Division between the Eastern 
and Western Divisions of 
New Jersey and for Prevent- 
ing Disputes for the Future 
Concerning the Same, etc.," 
637 

"for the Security of his Ma- 
jesty's Government of New 
Jersey," 648 

"to prevent Mistakes and Ir- 
regularities by Assessors and 
Collectors," 529 
"to Enforce the Payment of 
all Public Taxes." 537 
"to prevent Malicious Prose- 
cutions by Information," 466 
"the better to Enable the In- 
habitants of this Colony to 
Support Government, Dis- 
charge their Engagements in 
the Loan Office, and for Re- 
lieving their Other Necessi- 
ties by Making Current £20,- 
000 in Bills of Credit," 551 



Bailey. John, 36, 61, 64, 65. 66, 

632 
Baker, Capt. John, 41, 61, 76 
Ball, Levi, 659 
Baltimore. Lord, 5 
Barclay. Robert, 20, 47. 581. 

636. 637 
Barclay. David, 20 
Barclay. John, 22. 2~. 49, 50. 

183. 184, 309, 382. 4S3. 487. 

489. 491. 583- 584. 606. 616, 

621, 623, 624, 626, 627, 649 
Barclay- Coxe Agreement, 693, 
Bard. Peter. 275. 278, 546. 573. 

619 
Barkstead, Joshua. 107. 112 
Barvlet, Gratia. 685. 686 
Bartlet. Benjamin. 686 
Bartlett. Thomas. 489 
Basse, Jeremiah, 48. 55. 78, 93, 

95. 107, 108. III. 122, 136. 

170, 171. 172, 176. 184. 190. 

193. 194. 195, 196. 201. 205. 

209, 227, 233, 248. 254. 256. 

300. 314. 324. 348, 389, 397. 

406, 410, 411, 414, 415, 416, 



68, 



635, 



170, 
488. 
617, 

695 
600, 



94. 
137, 
191. 
206. 
258. 
401. 
417. 



423. 429. 476. 478. 485, 488. 489. 

490. 491. 492. 493. 506, 507. 541. 

543. 5^. 592. 593. 601. 603. 617, 

618, 623. 624, 627, 628, 629. 679 
Bath, Earl. 19 

Bellomont. Lord. 136, 142. 477 
Bendyck. 64 
Bergen. 25, 2&. 31, 70, 83. 86, 288. 

458. 463. 527. 629, 654 
Berkeley. Lord John. 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 

30, 2,2. 39, 59, 62, 71, 81, 124, 

125, 126, 127, 634 
Berry, Capt. John. 42. 43, j:^, 83 
Bickley, May. 481. 619. 654 
Bickley. William, 700 
Biddle, William, 16, 104, 308, 670, 

671. 674, 678. 682 
Billop, Christopher, 478 
Billop, J., 193 
Bincks, 72 
Bishop, John, ^i 
Blackstield. Peter, 175, 351. 375, 392, 

407, 408, 486, 490, 491, 501 
Blackwood. 53 
Blanchard, John, 662 
Blind Tax, 173, 183, 309, 346. 355. 

2^7, 381, 390, 391. 504, 609 
Bollen, James, 35. 83 
Bond, Robert, 83 
Bond, Benjamin. 633. 662 
Bonnell, Nathaniel, 619 
Bonnell. Joseph, 314, 315, 648, 660, 

662, 663 
Boudinot, Elias. 619 
Bowne. Obadiah. 309 
Bowne, John, 61. 75, 173, 309, 311, 

353, 355. 367. 381. 382. 390. 504, 

609, 626 
Bowne, Andrew, 94. 260. 267, 268. 

485. 603. 609. 626 
Brackett. John. 37. 68 
Bradford. William, 193, 415. 512. 

517. 535 
Bridges, John, 613, 659, 668. 671 

Brockholst, Henry, 132, 2:72. 2,72' 

428 
Brook, Rev. John, 171. 179. 584, 585, 

586 
Brown. John, 487 
Budd. John. 633 680. 6a4. 689. 693 
Budd. Thomas, 15, 119. 695, 698, 701 
Budd. William. 15. 583 
Bull, Richard. 293. 313. 272, Z72, 

428. 684, 688, 689. 693 



INDEX 



705 



Burg, 356 

Burlington, 18, 29. 98, 102, 
166, 179. 182, 191, 201, 
235, 244, 283, 288, 295. 
326, 327, 32S, 337, 348, 
358, 392, 430. 445. 460, 

469, 471, 481, 491, 520, 

538. 539, 562, 583. 587. 
669, 670, 680. 689, 691, 

Burnet, Robert, 218 

Burnet, John, 649 

Burnet, Governor William 
146, 159, 160, 161, 209, 
212, 213, 214. 215, 216, 
230, 234, 235. 254, 255 
287, 292, 293. 294, 302 
328, 329. 330, 333' 334, 
342, 349, 350, 362. 375 
436. 437. 438. 439. 440, 
443, 444, 445. 446, 448 
472. 473. 478. 498. 508, 
511, 512. 513, 524 557, 
574, 580, 598, 647. 653, 
695 

Burr, John, 698. 701 

Bustall, Samuel, 234, 699 

Byerly, Thomas, 207. 272, 
275, 279. 291, 296, 419 

Byllinge. Edward. 6. 7, 9, 
13T 14. IS. 16, 20, 97, 
115, 118, 119, 120. 128, 
635, 681, 685, 686 



Cabots, I 

Campbell, Rev. Colin, 600 

Campbell, Lord Neil, 48, 53, 91 

Carter. Samuel. 79. 96 

Carteret. Sir George, 3, 4 5, 7, 8, 9, 

10, II, 12, 19, 30, 39. 41. 42. 59, 

62, 71, 81. 124. 125. 126, 127, 

129, 634. 637. 645. 661 
Carteret. Lady Elizabeth, 19. 131, 

646 
Carteret, Philip, 31, 35, 36, 37, 

38. 41. 43, 62, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 

83. 84. 86, 87, 126, 129, 581, 661 
Carteret, Capt. James, 70, 72, 86, 87. 

632 
Case. John. 213. 579 
Cedar Brook, 76 
Chambers. John, 666 
Charles I. King. 2 
Charles H. King, 2, a 71, 77, 641, 

64s 
Chesterfield. 337, 429. 537, 543 



, 104. 


129, 


212, 


227, 


,356. 
463, 


322, 

357. 
465, 


527. 
. 599, 
,692. 


638, 
700 


, 144, 


145, 


210, 


2x1, 


217, 
276, 


229, 

285, 


303. 
, 336. 


314. 
337, 


434. 


435. 


441. 


442. 


. 470, 


471, 


. =^09, 


510. 


572, 
. 655. 


573. 
658. 


273. 
, 682 


274, 
687 


10. 11 


. 12, 


109. 

, 131, 


113. 
634, 



] Church of England. 179. 180, 191, 
200. 201, 202. 203. 204 214, 264, 
265. 580-601 

Clarke, George, 295 

Clarke, Henry. 498, 661 

Clarke, John. 79 

Clark. Walter, 62 

Clews, William, 293, 313, 361, 372, 
373, 425. 426. 428 

Clinker Lot Division, 80, 497, 498, 
632, 661, 663. 666 

Clinker Lot Right Men, 80 

Coale. Samuel, 695 

Cole, Samuel, 686 

Compton, Bishop, 581 

Concessions and Agreements of the 
Proprietors, Freeholders, and 
Inhabitants of the Province of 
West New Jersey in America, 
14 98. 99, 100. loi, 113, 114 115, 
116. 117. 118. 119. 120 

Concessions and Agreements of the 
Lords Proprietors of New Jer- 
sey. 32. 33- 34. 35. 39, 42. 44, 46, 
74. 82. 83. 86 

Cooper. William. 358 

Cooper, Daniel, 666 

Cooper vs. Morse. 666, 667 

Cornbury, Edward, Lord, 96, 139, 
140. 141. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152, 
153. 154. 155. 156. 157, 158. 164 
165. 166. 168. 169, 170. 171. 172. 
173. 174 175. 176. 177, 178, 179, 
180. 181. 182. 183, 184 185, 186, 
187. 188, 196. 223, 225, 232, 233, 
243. 244, 245, 246, 247, 261, 262, 
263. 264. 267. 269, 280, 281. 282, 
283. 284, 28>, 286, 288. 290, 296, 
298. 30s. 310, 317. 318, 319. 320, 
321. 322. 323. 334 338. 339. 341, 
342. 344- 346. 347. 355. 360. 378, 
379. 380, 381. 383. 384. 38s. 386, 
387. 388, 389. 391. 392, 393. 394. 
395. 396, 397. 422. 461, 464 465. 
475, 480, 484. 485. 494. 500, 502, 
503, 504 519. 561. 563. 567, 568, 
580. 583. 585, 604, 605. 606, 607, 
608. 609. 611. 613. 615. 616. 617, 
618. 620. 621, 671, 672, 673 

Cosby, William, 147, 217, 218, 219, 
220, 231, 239, 250, 255, 277. 278, 
279. 285. 287. 315. 332.' 334 335, 
336. 452, 453. 454, 472, 515. 554 

657 
Cosby, " Billy," 218 



of West 
702 
of New 



18, 107, 

637, 658, 

170, 171, 

195, 196, 

227, 229, 

268, 269, 

294, 296, 

348, 349. 

362, 371, 

414, 416, 

427. 428, 

480. 491. 

571, 575, 

594, 595, 

614, 615, 

631, 640, 

677. 678, 

684, 68s, 

694, 695, 



706 

Council of Proprietors 

Jersey, 16, 18, 104, 671- 
Council of the Province 

Jersey. 259-306 
Courson, William, 664 
Courtillon, Jacob, 43 
Coxe, Dr. Daniel, 16, 17, 
III, 121, 264, 629, 636, 

685, 701 

Coxe. Col. Daniel, 18. 168, 
172, 173. 185, 190, 192. 
197, 200, 205, 207, 210, 
233, 234. 235, 262. 264, 
271, 272, 279, 292, 293. 
313, 314, 327, 335. 338, 
356, 357, 358, 359, 361, 
2,12. Z7Z, 399, 407. 413. 
418, 419, 422. 423. 426, 
429, 431, 434- 445. 469 
492. 507. 537. 546. 562, 
580. 588, 589, 591, 593- 
598, 600, 601. 603, 613, 
624, 626, 627, 628. 629. 
641, 658, 659. 668, 671, 
679. 680, 681, 682. 683, 

686, 687, 688, 689, 693, 
696, 697. 700, 701 

Coxe. Samuel. 629 
Craig. Andrew, 498, 661 
Crane, Jasper, 309, 310, 31 
Crane, John^.662, 663, 666 
Cripps. John, 15 



Daniel. Jacob, 497, 501 

Dare. Capt. Wm.. 348. 567, 569 

Davenport. Francis. 16. 104, 169, 

259, 260. 261. 267. 268 
Davis. Nicholas, 62 
Davis, Samuel. ^2 
Deacon, George. 169, 259, 261, 274, 

356. 671, 689 
Decker. Jan, 692 , 

Declaration of the True Intent and 

Meaning of the Concessions, 39, 

71, 87, 88 
Decowe. Isaac, 248. 312, 550, 695, 

696, 697, 699 
Delaware. Lord. 252 
Denton. Daniel. 64. 65. 66 
Denton. Nathaniel. 64 
Dockwra. William. 21. 22. 23, 49, 50. 

53. 79. 139. 168. 183. 262. 272. 

420. 603, 610, 613. 614. 615, 616, 

618, 619, 622, 626, 628, 646, 654 
Doll. Thomas. 15 



INDEX 



\ 

Dominique, Charles. 659 

Dominique. Paul, 186, 613, 615, 628, 
668. 671. 674 

Dongan, Governor, 132, 308, 634, 641 

Drewi;t. Wm.. 15 

Drummond, James, Viscount Mel- 
ford. 20. 21 

Dudley. Col. Joseph, 92 

Duncan, Capt., 365 

Dundas, James. 49 

Dunster. Charles, 630, 649 

Dutch reconquest, 72, 87, 126 

Dyre. Wm.. 133 



Earle. Edward. Jr., 43 
East Greenwich, manor of, 2 
East Jersey. 11, 19. 20, 21, 22, 
24, 25. 26, 27, 28, 30. 35, 57, 
81-96, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 
136. 168. 183, 188. 215, 217, 
260, 281, 307, 309. 311. 352, 
354, 368, 381. 435. 447, 458. 
499, 538, 572. 584, 601, 602- 
693. 695. 700 
Edsall, Samuel, 83 
Eires. William, 194 
Elbridge. John, 10, 11. 12. 14. 97, 
Elizabethtown, 26, 28, 30, 36, 2,7- 
41, 42. 50, 53. 59. 60, 61, 63, 
65, 66, 67. 68, 69. 70. 71, 72, 
74, 75. 7^. 77' 79. 80. 83, 84, 
88. 95, 173, 179, 198, 459, 
498, 499, 583, 584. 595. 596, 
607, 608. 609, 624. 626. 632, 
656, 657. 659. 660, 661, 662, 
665. 666. 667 _ 
Elrington, Francis, 649 
Emley, Wm., 635 
Emmott. James. 50, 632 
" English Proprietors, The." 
173, 265, 266, 602. 603, 610, 
615. 618, 654 
Evertson. 72 



23. 

58, 
135, 
259, 
353, 
498, 
667, 



68s 
, 40, 

64. 
. 72, 
,87. 
497, 
605, 

633. 
663, 



168, 
614, 



Farmar, Thomas, 
227, 278. 295. 
361. 362. 388, 
477, 478, 479. 
541. 546. 569. 

Fauconnier. Peter 
181, 189. 190. 
393. 400. 410, 
503, 540. 619. 

Fenn, James, 666, 



193, 198, 
311. 312. 
389. 409. 
490. 492. 
577. 578. 

, 170. 171, 

194. 197, 
417. 493, 
622, 654 
667 



217. 218, 

315. 324. 

410, 425, 

493. 539. 
627, 631 
172, 180, 
292, 344. 

494, 502, 



INDEX 



707 



Fenwick, John. 6. 7, 9. 10, 11, 12, 

97, 109, 128, 685 
Fisher, William. 174. 355 
Fletcher, Gov.. 136. 477 
Forbes, Rev. John. 596 
Ford, Philip. 685 

Fors'er. Miles, 189, 193, 307, 308, 

345. 400, 406. 583. 622 
Foster. 64 

Fox. George. 6, 7, 1 19 
Fretwell. Peter, 16. 105. 273. 308. 

309, 312, 313. 491, 593. 680. 683, 

684 
Friends. Society of. 6. 7. 9. 10, 11, 

12. 13. 14. 15, 19. 20. 28. 29. 97, 

98, 99. 100. loi. 102. 103. 104. 
105, 106. 107. 108, 109. no. III. 
112. 113, 114, 115. 116. 117, 118, 
119, 120, 121. 122, 128. 129, 131, 
153. 169. 177, 180. 190. 195. 198, 
204. 207. 218. 224. 226. 228, 259. 
260. 261. 264, 270. 288. 305, 310. 
319, 330. 3S> 360. 361. 385, 392, 
401, 402, 403. 404, 413, 421, 426, 
450, 460, 467. 483, 487. 491, 492, 
560, 566, 567, 568. 571. 576, 582, 
585. 588. 589. 592. 595, 605. 610. 
612, 614, 624, 637, 668, 671, 673. 
674. 680 

Fullerton. James, 76. 77, 501 
Fundamental Constitutions. 46, 90 



Gardiner. Thomas. Sr 
Gardiner. Thomas. Jr 
198. 206, 228, 269. 
296. 308. 310, 311. 
382. 421, 483, 668. 
680. 682. 688. 692 
George I. King. 327, 

491. 508. 597 
George II. King. 446 
Gibbons. Richard. 42. 
Glencross. 411 
Gloucester Co.. 104. 
527. 562. 66g. 680, 
Gordon. Robert, 20 
Gordon, Thomas, 22, 
175, 183, 184. 190, 
IOC. 204. 214, 225, 
269. 270. 275. 292, 
311. 312. 321, 338. 
354. 355, 356, 357. 
368, 375- 377^ 382 
402. 408. 410. 416 
430, 433. 438. 441 



, 16, 104 
. 16. 194. 195, 
270. 273. 295, 
355, 356, 360, 
673. 674, 679, 

335. 422, 445, 



61 

no. 357, 463, 
684 

27. 50, 77, 170. 
191. 193, 194, 

, 228. 248. 255. 

. 295, 307, 309. 

, 345, 352, 353- 

, 3.59, 360, 361. 

. 386. 396. 397, 
421. 422. 425, 
444, 445. 476, 



477. 478, 481. 485. 486, 488, 489, 
491. 495. 496, 541, 542, 543, 580, 
584. 591, 606. 617, 618. 621, 622, 
623, 625, 626, 627, 631, 688 

Gosling. John. 15. 679, 695 

Gotbolt, 417, 490 

Goulding, Wm., 61 

Grenville, Hon. Bernard, 19 

Griffith, Alexander, 170, 171, 172, 
174, 190, 193, 195. 201, 206, 255, 
291. 476. 478. 484, 490. 492, 494. 
506. 507, 588. 593. 687 

Groome. Samuel. 45. 48, 49 

Grover. James. 42. 61 

Guy, Richard 98. lOO 

Hackensack. 43 

Hackshaw. Robert, 17 

Hadden. John. 697 

Haigh. William. 48. 49, 308. 685 

Hall. Clement. 701 

Hall, William. 192. 268. 271, 272, 
293, 308. 309, 311. 313. 348, 372, 
373. 413, 417, 418, 419, 423. 426, 
428. 429, 489. 490. 589. 627, 671 

Halliday, Rev. Thomas. 200, 586, 

I 591, 598 
Halsey, Joseph, 666 

I Hamilton. Andrew. 48. 49. 78, 79, 91, 
92. 93. 95, 104, 108, 112, 122, 13s, 
139. 232, 241. 654. 669, 670, 671 

[Hamilton. John. 193. 215. 251, 252, 

I 253. 272, 275. 278, 295, 419, 455, 

' 569. 573, 580, 601. 627, 639, 648, 

I 649. 655. 657. 658, 660, 665 
Hand, Shamgar. 463 
Harley. Robert, 347, 390 
Harriman. John. Jr.. 79, 633, 662 
Harris, Elizabeth, 686 
Harris. Walter. 701 
Harrison, Edmund. 17 
Harrison. Wm., 358, 425, 701 
Harrison. John, 191. 203. 307. 308, 

i 311, 312, 313. 353. 410. 483, 484, 

i 487, 577. 578, 590, 639. 643, 658 

' Hartshorne. Hugh. 20, 648 

I Hartshorne. Richard. 42. 75, 98. 309, 

! 359. 360. 378. 382. 648 

I Harwood. Rev. Nathaniel. 599. 600 

! Hatfield, Cornelius, 79 

I Haynes. Joseph. 656 

I Heath. Sir Robert. 17 

; Hedges. Secretar>'. 384 

' Helmsley, Joseph, 14, 98 



7o8 



INDEX 



Henderson, Rev. Jacob, 203, 272, 
589, 591, 598 

Hermans, Augustine, 65 

Hewling, Abraham, 583, 679 

Hewlings, Jacob, 293, 313, ^72, Z72, 
428, 537 

Hicks, Isaac, 643 

Hinchman, John, 701 

Holbrook, Rev., 596, 597, 599 

Hollingshead, Daniel, 649 

Hollingshead, John, 481, 482 

Holmes, Obadiah, 62 

Holmes, Jonathan, 42 

Homan, Benjamin, 74 

Hooper, Robert Lettice, 210, 217, 
218, 258, 314, 479, 498, 546, 601, 
661 

Hopewell, 584, 590 

Hopkins, Samuel, y2 

Horsimus, 288 

Huddy, Hugh, 181, 188, 268, 269, 271, 
273, 2A7, 390. 562, 583, 588, 589 

Hude, Adam, 409, 410, 540, 541, 578 

Hugg, John, IDS, 273, 275, 278, 308, 
309, 355, 573, 69s, 701 

Humphrey, Thomas, 649 

Humphries, Joshua, 312, 680, 689 

Hunloke, Edw^ard. 247, 259, 261 

Hun;er, Gov. Robert, 143, 144, 146, 
159, 181, 192, 10^. 194, 19s, 196, 
197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 
204, 205, 206, 207. 208, 223, 227, 
228, 229, 233. 234, 254, 269, 271, 
272, 273, 274, 28s, 287, 292, 293, 
294, 295, 298, 300, 301, 312, 313, 
314, 324, 325. 326, 327, 334, 335, 
336, 342, 344. 345, 348, 349, 350, 
351, 357, 358, 361. 371, Z72, 375, 
412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420, 
422, 423, 424, 42s, 426, 427, 428, 
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 466, 469, 
477, 478, 490, 492. 493, 494, 497, 
505, 506, 507, 522, 524, 533, 541, 
569, 571, 578, 580, 588, 589, 590, 
S93, 626, 627, 628, 629, 631, 641, 
642, 646, 682, 687, 688, 692 

Hunterdon Co., 328, 329, 358, 527, 
538, 575 

Hutchinson, Thomas, 14, 98 

Hutcheson, George, 14, 98 

Huttell, Nathaniel, 663 

Ingoldsby. Col. Richard, 141. 142, 
143, 171, 179, 189. 190, 191, 192, 
226, 227, 233. 243, 244, 24s. 246, 



269, 298, 301, 30s, 312, 324, 2,2^, 

340, 356, 398, 399. 401, 404, 407. 

411, 488, 489, 490, 505, 539, 586, 

588, 619, 624, 62s, 676 
Ingoldsby, Mary, 444 
Innes, Rev. Alexander, 200, 263, 585, 

587, 591, 596 
Inskip, John, 695 
Irish Friends, 102 

Jackson vs. Vail, 666, 667 

Jamaica, Long Island, 64 

James, Duke of York, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 
9, 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, 61, 65, 71, 
81, 91. 92, 115, 121, 124, 125, 126, 
127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 634 

Jamison, David, 193, 195, 209, 235, 
292, 443, 470, 477. 478, 490, 491, 
492, 493, 497, 498, 511, 627, 631 

Jarret, Allen, 643, 644 

Jennings, Samuel, 16, 19, 104, 105, 
116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 169, 170, 
172, 225, 259, 260, 261, 263, 30s, 
311, 338, 346, 347, 387, 391, 392, 
396, 398, 48=^, 621, 668, 671 

Jewell, John, 112, 256, 583 

Johnstone, Dr. John, 27, 53, 183, 193, 
198, 211, 215, 227, 228, 229, 273, 
274, 275, 278, 279, 312, 313, 314, 
315, 324, 349, 361, 376, 391, 442, 
445, 451, 483, 504, 569, 580, 584, 
601, 602. 605, 623, 631, 637, 642, 
643, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 691, 

693 
Johnstone, Andrew, 315, 556 
Johnstone.'Benjamin, 365 
Jones, Jeffry, 70, 76, 79, 94, 501 
Jones, Sir William, 13, 131 
Jones, widow, 520 
Jones vs. Fullerton, 624, 662 
Joyce, Henry, 272. 2,73^ 428 

Kay. John, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 

358, 671, 678, 691 
Kearney, Michael. 209, 215, 538, 556, 

601, 649, 650 
Keith, George, 48, 49, 580, 581, 582, 

583. 584. 585, 634, 635, 636 
Keith, Sir William, 241 
Keithan Quakers, 582, 583. 
Kent, William. 15 
Kent's Neck, 65 
Killingsworih, Thomas, 483 
Kingsland, Nathaniel, 43 



INDEX 



709 



Kinsey, John, Jr.. 218, 235. 311, 313, 
314, 315. 316, 329, 330, 331, 342, 
350, 358, 362, 372. 375, 376, 427, 
445, 450, 451, 493. 498, 512, 513, 
517, 650, 662, 699, 700 

Kirkbride, Joseph, 643, 680. 683, 684, 
694 

Ladd, John, 701 

La Heupe, Peter, 376, 444, 512, 658, 

659 
Lambert, Thomas. 308, 309, 310, 312, 

360. 382. 386. 639, 67Z, 694 
Lane, Sir Thomas, 17, 613, 668, 674 
Langstaff, John, 347, 367, 390 
Lattouch, Jeremiah, 656 
Lawrence, Elisha, 300. 311, 312, 313, 

368, 369, 370, 371. i72, 403, 406. 

408, 416, 625. 626, 648 
Lawrence, John, 660 
Lawrence, Wm., 313, 314. 353, 365, 

2,72, 428, 616, 626. 648 
Lawrie, Gawen, 9, 10, 11, 15, 20, 45, 

47, 48, 51, 52, 75. 89, 90, 98. 133, 

634, 641 
Leaming, Aaron, 315 
Leeds, Daniel. 103, 122, 195, 207, 260, 

268, 291, 296, 382. 383, 494. 588, 

622, 671, 673, 679. 680, 687. 688 
Leeds, Titan, 695, 696, 701 
Leisler, 476 

Leonard, Samuel, 259. 261, 613, 649 
Leonard, Thomas, 649 
Lesley. George, 649 
Lithegow, Patrick, 498, 661, 662 
Livingston, Wm., 63 
Logan, James, 574, 633, 6^7, 639, 658, 

667, 684, 685, 688, 689, 693, 694, 

695 

London. Friends of, 14. loi 

"Long Bill," 378. 606, 607, 608, 615, 

624 
Lovelace, Lord John, 71, 141, 158, 

159, 187. 188. 189. 190, 191. 223, 

225, 226, 233, 268, 285, 287, 298. 

300, 301, 305, 311. 324. 345, 347, 

397. 398, 400. 477. 488, 489, 504. 

568, 622. 674, 692 
Lovelace, Lady, 191, 408, 412, 505 
Lucas, Nicholas, 9, 10, 11, 15, 98 
Lyell, David, 273, 275, 535, 579, 639, 

649. 658 . , . 

Lyell. Fenwick. 367, 556, 601, 649. 

660. 66s, ^^ 
Lynn, Benjamin, 79 



Machilson, Enoch, 364 

Marsh, Andrew, 498 

Marsh, Joshua, 661 

Mathews. Richard, 15 

Maverick. Samuel, 4, 126 

McKemie, 477 

McKenzie, 591 

Meaker, Wm., 70. 71, 74 

Meeker, Joseph, 633 

Mellin, 487 

Melyn, Jacob, 72 

Mew, Richard, 21 

Michel, Robert, 613, 668, 671 

Michell, Richard, 69 

Mickle, John, 695 

Middleton, Hugh, 405 

Middletown, 28, 38, 41, 42, 63, 79, 85, 
86. 95, 173 

Militia, 177, 178, 199, 213, 219, 224, 
225, 228, 559-579 

Minnisinck Path. 65, 76 

Minnisinck Province, 108 

Mitchell, Robert. 659 

Mompesson, Roger. 170, 171, 174, 
190, 192, 197. 262, 264, 265, 271, 
273. 279, 290, 295, 399, 444, 462, 
465, 475. 477, 484, 489, 490, 613. 
623, 624. 627 

Monmouth. 26, 36, 38. 41, 59. 61. 62, 
()2- 75. 79. 84, 200, 458, 527, 546, 
562, 626. 629 

Montgomerie, Gov. John, 146, 147, 
161, 162, 163, 217, 218, 230, 236, 
237. 249, 250. 255. 285, 294, 304. 
315, 331, 2ZZ^ 335, 336, 342, 350, 
448, 449, 450. 451, 452, 472, 513, 
514, 553, 557. 575, 65s, 698 

Moore. John, 481 

Moore, Thorowgood, 171, 179, 584. 
585. 586 

Morgan. Simon. 490 

Morris, Col. Lewis, 22, 24. 43, 78, 95, 
96. 108, 137. 147, 150, 167, 169, 
172, 182, 183, 187, 189, 191, 195, 
198, 200. 203, 215, 219, 225, 228, 
232. 237. 238, 239. 240, 241, 242, 
247. 248. 249, 250, 251, 252, 259. 
260. 263. 264, 267. 269, 27s, 277, 
278, 279. 292, 295, 305, 311, ^2,2>, 
346. 354, 387, 388, 391, 392, 395, 
398, 419, 452, 454, 455, 485, 492, 
504, 567, 573. 575, 580, s8i, 585. 
590, 596. 602. 603, 604, 605, 6X2, 
613, 615. 621, 623. 624, 626, 627, 
631, 644, 648, 649, 650, 652, 653, 



7IO 



INDEX 



655. 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 669, 
673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 682, 688, 
689. 690, 691, 700 

Morris, Wm., 272, 364, 419, 420 

Morse, Joseph, 664, 666 

Mott. Gershom. 300. 311, 312, 313, 
357, 361, 368, 369, 370, 371, 403, 
406, 408, 416, 417, 625. 626 

Muliness, Wni., 15 

Murray, Joseph, 498, 650, 656, 657, 
660, 661, 666 

iNegroes, 42. 44, 217, 533 

Nevesinks, 40, 71, 75 

New Albion, 2 

Newark. 26, 28, 2>^, 2>7y 38, 40. 41. 

65. 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 79, 83, 95, 

463, 601 
New Barbadoes, 43 
New Britain, 619, 654, 658 
Newcastle, Dnke of, 237, 250 
New Netherlands, 2, 3 
Nicoll, Wm., 619 
Nicolls, Col., 2, 3, 4, 36, 59, 60, 61, 

62, 64, 65, 126 
Nicoll's grant, 607, 608, 632, 633, 661, 

662, 663 
Nicols. Mathias, 43 
Nicholson, Gen., 592, 593 
Nicholson - Vetch expedition, 193, 

226, 299, 305, 340, 369, 401, 402, 

405, 409, 519, 539, 576, 624 
Norris, Henry, 633 
Nova Cesarea, 3, 8, 14 

Ogden, Benjamin, 633 

Ogden, John, Sr., 38, 61, 68, 72 

Ogden, John, Jr., 70 

Ogden, Jonathan, 79 

Ogden, Major Josiah, 249, 313, 314, 

546, 601 
Ogden. Robert, 633 
Olive, Thomas, 14, 16, 19, 100, 104, 

117, 460 
"Ordinance of George II." 212 
"Ordinance for Establishing Courts 

of Judicature. An," 462 
Ormston. John. 185. 206, 620 
Ormston, Joseph, 184, 619, 620, 622, 

630 

Pardon, Wm.. 71. 83. 86 
Parker, Elisha, 272. 273. 311, 409, 
410. 419. 539, 541, 577, 578. 627 



Parker. John, 273, 275, 278, 546, 649, 

658 
Parker. Joseph, 75 
Partridge. Richard, 237, 240, 376, 

^ 451, 454, 513, 553, 555, 575, 659 

Peachy, Wm., 15 

Peagrim, John, 278 

Peapack Tract, 53 

Pearson, Thomas, 14, 98 

Penford, John, 14, 100 

Penn, William, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 
15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 98. 109, 113, 
IIS, 118, 129, 130. 268. 475, 622, 
633, 637. 666. 682, 684, 685 

Perth Amboy, 27, 28, 47, 51. 56, yj, 
94, 132, 134. 135, 166. 168, i6g, 
179, 184, 200. 212. 251. 256. 270, 
283, 288, 294, 308. 318, 322, 326, 
3^7, 2,2,7^ 3=;6. 357. 459. 463, 469, 
471, 477, 520, 581, 583. 584, 591, 
595, 601. 602. 638. 650, 653 

Perth. Earl of. 20, 21. 91 

Perthuck. Rev. Edward. 581 

Phillipp, Frederick, 642 

Pierce, Daniel, 38, 68 

Pike, John, 83, 483 

Pike, Thomas, 409, 410, 539, 541 

Pinhorne, Capt. John. 338. 389. 416, 
486 

Pinhorne, Wm,. 43, 44. 170, 171, 174, 
175. 190, 192, 197. 247, 260, 261, 

269, 271, 272, 290. 296. 399. 413, 
417, 418. 419. 444, 46s. 476, 477, 
484. 486. 490, 545. 588, 589, 624, 
627 

Piscataway, 28, 36. 38. 40, 41. 68, 70, 
71, 74. 79, 95. 200. 539- 595 

Ployden, Sir Edmund. 2 

Pomphrey. 174 

Popple. Secretary, 207, 216, 272. 555, 
585, 593 

Portland Point, 85 

Price. Capt., 625 

Proprietors of East Jersey. Board 
of, 22 

Provost, Wm.. 278 

Pumphrey, Walter, 481, 482, 484 

Quakers. See Friends, Society of. 
Quary. Col. Robert, 139. 172. 187, 
256. 260, 261, 268, 271, 273. 278, 

270, 281. 354. 370. 387, 399- 589. 
608. 609. 614 

Quintipartite Deed. 11, 12. 21, 634, 
637 



INDEX 



711 



Quit-rent, 58, 59. 60. 61. 62, 69, 70, 
71, 75, 94. 183. 184. 22^, 604, 609, 
616, 618, 619, 650, 652, 654 

Racoon Creek. 28 

Ramapo. 619, 654 

Randolph, Edward, 139 

Reading, John. 16. 272, 27^. 27s, 296, 

419, 639, 640, 643, 674, 680, 681, 

683, 684. 687, 688. 689. 694 
Reading, John, Jr., 682, 696 
Reading, Thomas, 590 
Reape, Wm., 61 
Reeve, John. 490 
Regnier, Jacob. 484 
Reid, John, 49. 307, 308, 313, 359, 

360, 583. 606. 635 
Revolution in East Jersey, 55, 69, 

70, 71, 72, 79, 95, 96 
Revell, Thomas, 108. 122, 260, 267, 

268, 382. 383. 588, 622. 671, 673 
Richier, Edward, 186, 271, 613, 628, 

668, 674 
Rillingvvorth, Thomas, 174 
Roberts, Dr. John, 193, 344, 421, 430, 

433 
Robeson, Andrew, 104 
Robinson, Andrew, 634 
Robinson, John, 498 
Robison, John, 661, 662 
Rodman, Dr. John, 278 
Royden, Wm., 105 
Royse, John, 309, 310, 311, 353, 409, 

539 
Rudvard, Thomas, 20. 47, 49, 52, 75, 

89, 90 
Ruiherford. 43 

Salem. 11. 29, 128. 322. 328. 357. 362, 

460. 463. 527, 562, 572, 596, 599 
Salem Tenth, 109 
Salter, Richard, 96. 173, 174, 309, 

353. 355. 367. 381, 382, 504, 569, 

609, 626 
Sandford, Major Wm., 43. 73, 83, 

260, 271, 313, 361, 366, 369, 370, 

371. 399. 416 
Sandwick. Earl, 19 
Sawyer, Sir Robert, 134 
Scattergood, Samuel, 699, 701 
Schuyler, John, 278 
Schuyler. Peter, 498, 661, 662 
Schuyler. Philip, 313. 366, 370, 644 
Scot, George, 274 



'■ Scotch and Quaker factions," 

260. 
Scott, Benj., 14 
Scott, Capt.. 4 
Sharp. Isaac, 312. 313, 314, 365. 

639 

Sharpe. John. 555 

Shotwell, Joseph, 663 

Shrewsbury, 7. 28, 41, 43. 85, 
463. 583. 596 

Silvester. Nahaniel, 61 

Skene. John. 120. 634. 641 

Skinner, Rev. Wm., 595. 596, 60 

Slooby. Wm.. 486 

Sloper, 187. 384 

Sloughter. Gov.. 476 

Smith, James, 196, 205, 206, 209, 
254. 255, 258, 275, 278, 279. 
423. 441. 468, 516, 630. 650, 
689. 099 

Smith, John, 40 

Smith, Richard. 15. 278, 662 

Smith. Samuel, 313 

Smith, Wm., Jr., 63 

Smyth, Lawrence, 256, 480 

Snake Hill. 43. 65, 476 

Sonmans. Arent, 20, 21, 184, 
603, 614, 619, 697 

Sonmans, Peter, 22. 23, 53, 139, 
172, 176, 183. 184, 185, 189, 
192, 195. 197. 200, 205, 216, 
265, 266, 267. 268, 269, 271, 
291, 296, 315. 356. 392, 399. 
410, 413, 414, 417. 418, 419. 
488. 489, 496. 580. 584, 588, 
591, 603, 613. 614. 615, 616, 
618, 619. &20, 621. 622, 623, 
625. 626, 627. 628. 646, 653. 
655. 657. 681. 697 

Sonmans. Rachel, 619. 620 

Spicer. Jacob. 191, 312, 313, 364, 
426. 429. 579 

Spicer, Samuel, 61 

Stacy, ^lahlon, 14, 98, 104, no, 

Stacy. Alahlon (son of), 315, 

359. 445 
Stacy. Henry, 15 
Staten Island, 646 
Stephenson, Thomas. 680, 681, 

684 
Sterling, Lord, 276 
Stevens, John. 550 
Stout. Richard, 61 
Strafford, 2 
Supreme Court, 174, 175, 176, ic 



259. 



572, 



86, 



218, 
296, 



266, 

168. 
190, 
262, 
272, 
400, 
487. 
589. 
617, 
624, 
654. 



372, 

670 

358, 



683, 



712 



INDEX 



Talbot, Rev. John, 200, 201, 202, 214, 
293. 335, 423. 583, 584, 586, 587, 
588, 589. 591, 592, 593, 594, 595. 
596, 597. 598. 599 

Tatham, John, 92, 104, 122, 587 

Tenison, Archbishop, 597 

Thackera, Thomas, no 

Thomas, Josiah, 686 

Tilton, John, 61 

Tilton, Peter, 42 

Tinton Manor, 43 

Townley, Richard, 170, 172, 197, 262, 
264, 26s, 269, 307, 308, 353, 363, 
398, 562, 584, 613, 619 

Treat, John, 311, 312, 313 

Trent, James, 546 

Trent, vvm., 209, 210, 235, 314, 375, 
411, 442, 443, 470, 478, 479, 493, 
511, 540, 546, 598, 601 

"Trentham." 640 

Turnbull, Thomas, 484 

Turner, Robert. 15, 20 

Twenty-four proprietors, 20, 21, 22, 
23, 28. 44. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 
51, 52, ^3, 54, 55. 56, 57, 75, 76, 
77, 89. 90, 131, 132, 133, 459, 634 

Urmston, Rev. John, 598 

Vail, John. 665. 666 
Vail, Stephen, 666 
Valot, Claude, 69 
Van Buskirk, Thos., 361, 366 
Van Horn, Cornelius, 277 
Van Zant, Isaac, 363 
Vaughan, Rev. Edward. 200, 497, 
501, 586, 591, 595, 596, 601, 632 
Vaughan, Samuel, 649 
Vaughan vs. Woodruff, 660, 662 
Vauquillin, Robert, 35, Z7, 68, 7Z, 83 
Verlett. Capt. Nicholas, 83 
Vesey, 202. 593. 600 

Waite, Daniel, 685 

Walker, Alexander, 487 

Walker, 260 

Walker expedition, 419, 519, 541, 578 

Walter, Robert, 643 

Warne, Thomas, 20 

Warner, Edmund, 10, 11, 12, 14, 97, 

685 
Warrell, Joseph, 256 
Wasse, James, 98 
Watson, Luke, 38, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68, 

70 
Welch, Wm., 120 
Wells, Philip, 48, 634 



Welton, Dr., 598 

Vvest, Robert, 20 

West Jersey. 11, 12, 13, 14. 16, 17, 
18, 28, 29, 97, 98, 99. 100, lOI, 
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 
109, no, III, 112, 120, 121, 122, 
128, 130, 131, 135, 168, 185, 186, 
206, 216, 260, 281, 309, 311, 460, 
494, 538, 562, 567, S72, 573, 636, 
637, 639. 641, 658, 659, 66s, 668- 
702 

West Jersey Society, 17, 18, 19, 107, 
108. no, 112, 121, 122. 137, 206, 
262, 267. 268, 269, 271, 285, 383, 
602, 613, 614, 615, 622, 628, 633, 
656. 668, 670, 671, 673, 675, 676, 
677. 688, 689, 690, 691, 692 

Westland. Nathaniel, 107, 108, 583 

Weston. Charles, 359 

Wetherell, Thos., 671, 695, 701 

Weyman, Rev. Robert, 600 

Wheeler, Robert, 309, 310, 312. 356, 

583 

White. John. 256 

Whitehead, Nathaniel, 633 

Wildgoose, Richard, 178, 483 

William. King, 135, 137 

Williams, Thomas, 686 

Willocks, George, 22, 23. 27, 49, 50, 
53. 54. 56. 78, 94, 95, 183, 189, 
191, 200, 202, 206, 211, 212, 229, 
254. 276, 293, 295, 342, 349. 417, 
435, 442, 483, 488. 580, 584, 591, 
594. 602, 603, 621, 623, 626, 627, 
631, 633, 6^7, 639, 642. 643, 645, 
646. 647, 648, 649, 682, 687 

Wills, Daniel, 14, 100 

Wills. John. 273. 275, 311, 573, 670, 
671, 678, 680, 683, 684, 689, 691, 
696 

Wilson, 411 

Wolphertsen, 2>7 

Woodbridge, 28, 36, 38. 40, 6&, 70, 
71, 83, 86, 459, 583, 595, 607 

Wood Creek, 577 

Woodruff, Joseph, 497, 501, 632, 662 

Woodward, Anthony, 353 

Worrell, Joseph, 480 

Wright, Johanna, 620 

Wright, John, 366 

Wright, Joseph, 620, 622 

Wright, Joshua, 309, 310, 382, 673, 
701 

Yonkers Mills, 642 

Yorkshire, Friends of, 14, 98, 99, lOi 



Studies in History, Economics and Public Law 

Edited by the 

Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University 



VOLUME I, 1891-2. 2nd. Ed., 1897. 396 pp. Price. $3.00. 

1. Tlie Divorce Problem. A Study in Statistics. 

Ey Walter A- Willcox, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

2. Tlie History of Tariff Adniiiiistration in the United States, from 

Colonial Tillies to the McKiiiley Administrative Bill. 

By John Dean Goss, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

8. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island. 

By Georgb Ashton Black, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

4. Fiuauelal History of Massachusetts. 

By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph.D. (Not sold separately.) 

VOLUME II, 1892-93. 503 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. The Economics of the Russian Village. 

By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph.D. {Out o/print.) 

2. Hankriiptcy. A Study In Comparative Legislation. 

By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 

8. Special Assessments: A Study In Municipal Finance. 

By Victor Roskwatbr, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1S98. Price, |i.oo. 

VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. ♦History of Flections In the American Colonies. 

By Coktland F. Bishop, Ph.D. Price, ^1.50. 

2. The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. 

By George L. Beer, A.M. {Not sold separately.) 

VOLUME IV, 1893-94. 438 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. Financial History of Virginia. By William Z. Ripley, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 

2. *The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1908. Price, $2.00. 

3. History of Taxation In Vermont. 

By Frederick A. Wood, Ph.D. {Not sold separately .) 

VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. Double Taxation in the United States. 

By Francis Walker, Ph.D. Price, Si.oo. 

2. The Separation of Governmental Powers. 

By William Bondy, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. 

3. Municipal Government In Michigan and Ohio. 

By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. 

. VOLUME VI, 1896. 601 pp. Price, $4.00. 

History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania. 

By William Robert Shepherd, Ph.D. Price $4.00; bound, ^4.50. 

VOLUME VII, 1896. 512 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. History of the Transition from Provincial to Common-wealtli 

Government in Massachusetts. 

By Harrt a. Gushing, Ph.D. Price, |2.oo. 

2. Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United 

States. By Henry Crosby Emery, Ph.D. Price, ^i.^g. 



VOLUME VIII, 1896-98. 551pp. Price. $3.50. 

1. The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Re- 
construction. By Charles Ernest Chadsky, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

8. Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational AdmlniLtra- 
^^on. By William Clarencb Webster, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

8. The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris, 

By Francis R. Stark, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 

4. Public Administration in Massachusetts. The Relation of Central 
to Local Activity. By Robert Harvey Whitten, Ph.D. Price, gi.oo. 

VOLUME IX, 1897-98. 617 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. *English Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations 
of Central and Local Government. 

By MiLO Roy Maltbie, Ph.D. Price, iS2.oo 
8. German Wage Theories. A History of their Development. 

By James W. Crook, Ph.D. Price, |i.oo. 
3. The Centralization of Administration In New York State. 

By John Archibald Fairlib, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. 

VOLUME X, 1898-99. 500 pp. Price, $3.00. 
1. Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts. 

By Feed S. Hall, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 
8. *Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union. 

By Frank Greene Bates, Ph.D. Price, ii 50. 
3. Centralized Administration of Liquor Laws In the American Com- 
monwealths. By Clement Moore Lacey Sites, Ph.D. Price, |i.oo. 

VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp. Price, $3.50. 

The Growth of Cities. By Adna Ferrin Weber, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XII, 1899-1900. 586 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. History and Functions of Central Labor Unions. 

By William Maxwell Burke, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. 
3. Colonial Immigration Laws. 

By Edward Emberson Proper, A.M. Price, 75 cenu. 

3. History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States. 

By William Henry Glasson, Ph.D Price, $1.00. 

4. History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. 

By Charles E. Merriam. Jr., Ph.D. Price, Ji.so. 

VOLUME XIII, 1901. 570 pp. Price. $3.50. 

1. The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. 

By Isidor LoBB, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 
a. Political Natlvism In New Tork State. 

By Louis Dow Scisco, Ph.D. Price, $2.00, 
3. The Reconstruction of Geot-gla. 

By Edwin C. Woollby, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME XIV. 1901-1902. 576 pp. Price. $3.50. 
1. Loyalism In New York during the American Revolution. 

By Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph.D. Price, Ja.oo. 

5. The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. 

By Allan H. Willett, Ph.D. Price, 51.50. 
3. The Eastern Question : A Study In Diplomacy. 

By Stephen P. H. Duggam, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 

VOLUME XV, 1902. 427 pp. Price, $3.00. 
Crime in Its Relations to Social Progress. 

By Arthur Clbybland Hall, Ph.D. 



VOLUME XVI, 1902-1903. 547 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. Tlio Past and Present of Commerce in Japan. 

By Yktaro Kinosita, Ph.D. Price, Ji.so. 
3. Tlie Employment ol Women In the Clotliing Trade. 

By Mabel Hurd Willbt, Ph.D. Price, |i.5C». 
3. The Centralization of Administration In Ohio. 

By Samuel P. Orth, Ph.D. Price, 8«.5o. 

VOLUME XVII, 1903. 635 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. *CentraIIzingr Tendencies In tlie Administration of Indiana. 

By William A. Rawles, Ph.D. Price, $a so. 
S. Principles of .Justice in Taxation. 

By Stephen F. Wbston, Ph.D. Price, S2.00. 

VOLUME XVIII, 1903. 753 pp. Price, $4.00. 

1. The Administration of Io>va. 

By Harold Martin Bowman, Ph.D. Price, 81.50. 

2. Turgot and the Six Edicts. By Robert P. Shepherd, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. Hanover and Prussia, 1795-1803. 

By Guy Stanton Ford, Ph.D. Price, ^2.00, 

VOLUME XIX, 1903-1905. 588 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. Josiah Tucker, Economist. By Walter Ernest Clark, Ph.D. Price, Ji.50. 

S. History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of Value In English 
Political Economy. By Albert C Whitakbr, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. Trade Unions and the Law in New York. 

By George Gorham Groat, Ph.D. Price, Jt. 00. 

VOLUME XX, 1904. 514 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. The Office of the .Justice of the Peace in England. 

By Charles Austin Beard, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. 

S. A History of Military Government in New^ly Acquired Territory of 

the United States. By David Y. Thomas, Ph.D. Price, J2.00. 

VOLUME XXI, 1904. 746 pp. Price. $4.00. 

1. *Treaties, their Making and Enforcement. 

By Samuel B. Crandall, Ph.D. Price, |i. 50. 
S. The Sociology of a New York City Block. 

By Thomas Jessb Jones, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 
3. Pre-Malthuslan Doctrines of Population. 

By Charles E. Stangbland, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. 

VOLUME XXII, 1905. 520 pp. Price, $3.00. 

The Historical Development of the Poor Law^ of Connecticut. 

By Edward W. Capfn, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XXm, 1905. 594 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. The Economics of Land Tenure in Georgia. 

By Enoch Marvin Banks, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. 

2. Mistake in Contract. A Study in Comparative Jurisprudence. 

By Edwin C. McKeag, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 

3. Combination in the Mining Industry. 

By Henrt R. Mussey, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. 

4. The English Craft Gilds and the Government. 

By Stella Kramer, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. 

VOLUME XXIV, 1905. 521 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. The Place of Magic in vhe Intellectual History of Europe. 

By Lynn Thorndike, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

2. The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. 

By William K. Boyd, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

3. *The International Position of Japan as a Great Pow^er. 

By Sei;i G. HiSHiDA, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 







.A ^.' :)'i V 



VOLUME XXV, 1906-07. 600 pp. Price, $4.00. .: V V : 

1. * Municipal Control of Public Utilities. 7 f^ 

By Oscar Lewis Pond. Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. 

2. The Budget in tlie American Common-wealtlis. 

By Eugene E. Agger, Ph.D. Price, $i 50. 

3. The Finances of Cleveland. By Charles C. Williamson, Ph.D. Price, gz.oo. 

VOLUME XXVI, 1907. 559 pp. Price, $3.50. 
1. Trade and Currency in Early Oregon. 

By James H. Gilbert, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. 
S. liUther'S Table Talk. By Preserved Smith, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 

3. The Tobacco Industry In the United States. 

By Meyer Jacobstein, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. 

4. Social Democracy and Population. 

By Alvan a. Tenney, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

VOLUME XXVII, 1907. 578 pp. Price. $3.50. 

1. The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole. 

By NoRRis A. Brisco, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. 
y. The United States Steel Corporation. 

By Abraham Berglund, Ph.D. Price, $1.50 
3. The Taxation of Corporations in Massachusetts. 

By Harky G. Friedman, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. 

VOLUME XX Vm, 1907. 534 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. DeWitt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in Nevr York. 

By Howard Lee McBain, Ph.D. Price, g 1.50. 

5. The Development of the Legislature of Colonial Virginia. 

By Elmer I. Miller, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 
3. The Distribvition of Ownership. 

By Joseph Harding Underwood, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 630 pp. Price, $4 00. 

1. Early New England Towns. 

By Anne Bush MacLbar, Ph.D. Price, gi.50. 

2. New Hampshire as a Royal Province. 

By William H. Fry. (In press.) 

VOLUME XXX, 1908. 712 pp. Price, $4.00. 

The Province of New .Jersey, 1664—1738. 

By Edwin P. Tanner, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XXXI, 1908. 575 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. Private Freight Cars and American Railroads. 

By L. D. H. Weld. Ph.D Price, $1.50. 
S. Ohio before 1850. By Robert E. Chaddock, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population. 

By George B. Louis Akner, Ph.D. Price, 75c. 

4. Adolphe Quetelet as Statistician. By Frank H. Hankins, Ph.D. Price, $1 25. 

VOLUME XXXII, 1908. 705 pp. Price, $4.00. 

The Enforcement of the Statutes of Laborers. 

By Bertha Haven Putnam, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XXXIII, 1908-1909. 

1. Factory Legislation in Maine. By E. Stagg Whitin, A B. Price, Ji.oo. 

VOLUME IV, No. 2, 1908. 

* The Inheritance Tax. Second edition. Completely revised and enlarged. 

By Max West, Ph.D. Price, 32.00. 

The price for each volume is for the set of monographs in paper. Each volume, 
as well as the separate monographs marked*, can he supplied in cloth-hound copies, 
for 50c. additional. All prices are net. 

The set of thirty-two volumes, comprising eighty-five monographs, (except 

that Vol. II can be supplied only in unbound nos. 2 and 3) is offered 

bound for $106. Volumes I, III and IV can now be supplied 

only in connection with complete sets. 



For further information, apply to 

Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia University, 

or to Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., New York. 
London: P. S. KING & SON, Orcliard House, Westminster. 



\ 



